PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags) Bill  (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 July.

Manchester City Council Bill  [Lords]  (By Order):

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading (12 June).
	 Debate to be resumed on Thursday 10 July.

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill  [Lords] (By Order)
	 — 
	Canterbury City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Leeds City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Nottingham City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Reading Borough Council Bill  (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 July.

CONTINGENCIES FUND

Resolved,
	That there be laid before this House, Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 2007-08, showing—
	(1) a balance sheet;
	(2) a cashflow statement; and
	(3) notes to the account; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.— [Alison Seabeck.]

Oral Answers to Questions

BUSINESS, ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM

The Secretary of State was asked—

National Minimum Wage

Jim Cunningham: What steps the Government have taken to increase awareness of the minimum wage since its introduction.

John Hutton: Last year, the Government ran a major advertising and awareness campaign to highlight entitlement to the national minimum wage. The campaign produced some very positive results, including a 400 per cent. increase in calls to our language and help lines, more than 170,000 hits on the online guidance, and an increased number of enforcement requests to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but further to it, what is he doing to enforce the minimum wage, in particular in respect of employers who exploit migrant workers by paying them below the minimum wage and apportioning unrealistic costs on them?

John Hutton: We are taking two steps to address those concerns. First, the Employment Bill, which is currently going through the other place, will significantly change the way in which we recover arrears of unpaid wages and make it clear that it is the will of this House that every worker should be entitled to a proper national minimum wage that is properly enforced, and that there will be a consequence for employers who do not pay it. Secondly, we have provided significant additional resources to help enforcement of the national minimum wage. I hope that that addresses the concerns that my hon. Friend and many others have expressed to Ministers in recent weeks.

Brian Binley: The national minimum wage has increased by 53.3 per cent., while average earnings have increased by only 39.9 per cent. The British Retail Consortium has stated that members' costs increased by £1.7 billion in 2006, which was 13 per cent. more than they expected. The strain on small businesses is ever growing and increasingly causing problems. Recognising the Chancellor's call for inflation-related pay increases, will the Government now ensure that the minimum wage will no longer increase at levels above inflation?

John Hutton: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the latter point is a matter for the Low Pay Commission, which will make recommendations to Ministers. I know that he is a fair-minded man, and I would have thought that he would welcome the fact that the wages of the poorest workers in Britain have been rising at a faster rate than those of others; I would have thought that that would be welcomed in all parts of the House. On the point about small businesses, let me rehearse the following argument with him. Almost 0.75 million more small businesses are now trading in the United Kingdom than 10 years ago, so he cannot portray the national minimum wage as in any way inhibiting the growth of small businesses. That would be unreasonable, and it is not borne out by the evidence, which it is always important for us to keep in mind. Also, 3 million more people are now in work, going to work every day, than in 1997. If we had listened to the advice of the many Opposition Members who argued that the national minimum wage would destroy jobs, we would not have seen the progress that we have seen so far.

Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend may be aware of a case in Nottingham in which an immigrant worker was paid £8.80 after a week's work. That is total abuse. Is he also aware that 42 per cent. of the construction labour force in London is immigrant labour? That labour needs protecting. I hear what he says about the Employment Bill that is currently in the other place, but does he agree that further protection is needed, and will he consider working with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions in order to extend the gangmasters regulation to construction?

John Hutton: Obviously, we look at a number of these issues, because it is important that proper protections are in place. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the Nottingham case and his concerns about what is happening in the construction industry. We have enacted legislation to protect workers and to ensure that they are entitled to a proper national minimum wage. It is our responsibility as Ministers to make sure that that legislation is properly and fully enforced. Our current focus is on improving enforcement. We are willing to listen to, and consider carefully, any further requests for additional legislation, but the case for such legislation has to be fully and squarely met.

Philip Hollobone: What has been the regional variation in the number of complaints regarding non-payment of the minimum wage?

John Hutton: I do not have the regional data, but I am quite happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Lazarowicz: In a recent debate that I secured in Westminster Hall on the national minimum wage, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who has some knowledge of these matters, suggested that the legislation now going through Parliament could require wage slips to include details of the national minimum wage currently in force and of the national minimum wage hotline number. That simple measure could provide greater awareness of the minimum wage and of enforcement. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consider making such provision as that legislation goes through Parliament?

John Hutton: I am a great admirer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who did a sterling job in introducing the legislation. We will obviously look seriously at any such proposal, and I am happy to discuss in more detail later with my hon. Friend this and any other concerns that he has.

Post Office Network

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on the future of the post office network in rural areas.

Patrick McFadden: The Department receives representations on a wide range of issues relating to the post office network, including, of course, its future in rural areas. The access criteria for the post office network ensure that 95 per cent. of the total rural population across the UK are within 3 miles of their nearest post office outlet.

Anne McIntosh: More than 300 people from the Vale of York alone took the opportunity to respond to the consultation. Twenty-three branches have been earmarked for the outreach programme, which constitutes nothing less than post office branch closures. For sometimes only two hours each week, a man in a van is going to present himself at these villages. Does the Minister not accept that he is being less than honest with the public? People in the Vale of York feel that they are being taken for a complete ride. They have not been listened to, branches are closing, village shops—where they do exist—are even being threatened, and the level of service is being reduced to virtually nothing. Will he apologise to the people of the Vale of York?

Patrick McFadden: I accept that this is a difficult process, but I am afraid that I do not accept that I have been less than honest throughout it. The hon. Lady referred to outreach, which is not the same as a post office closing. She will in future find, I believe, that outreach can provide a very valuable service to her constituents. My understanding is that the number of outreach facilities planned for her constituency is six, not 23, as she stated.

Ian Cawsey: My hon. Friend will know that with the growth in the number of outreach branches, some sub-postmasters are taking on several branches. One sub-postmaster in my constituency is running three outreach facilities and another is running four, yet they get only the one piece of portable kit to enable them to go around the villages delivering this service. That reduces the number of hours that they can do and the flexibility of the service. Can my hon. Friend therefore make representations to the Post Office so that, where sub-postmasters are running several outreach branches, they have more than one piece of portable kit to enable them to offer a more extensive and flexible service?

Patrick McFadden: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. He is right that the provision of outreach is dependent on a core sub-postmaster providing that service in two or three villages. I am very happy to convey to the Post Office his point about the equipment.

Michael Weir: Two of the rural post offices in my constituency, Inverkeilor and Carmyllie, along with Arbroath's Cairnie street post office, are scheduled to close. The rationale, apparently, is that the business will transfer to the main Arbroath post office. However, in the middle of the consultation period the Post Office suddenly announced that the franchisee of the main Arbroath post office did not wish to renew their franchise in the early part of next year. I contacted the Post Office, and although it confirmed that the main office would have be relocated, it could not tell me who would run it, or where or what size it would be. Does the Minister not accept that even under this inadequate consultation process, such a material change in circumstances must mean that the proposed closures are put on hold, at the very least, until the future of the main post office is clarified?

Patrick McFadden: I certainly accept that where closures take place and there is an assumption of migration to a different branch, that branch should be capable of dealing with that business. I am very clear that that should happen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in others.

Jon Trickett: Many hon. Members have raised the question of post offices in the House, but is my hon. Friend aware that the Post Office proposes to start the consultation in my area on the day after the parliamentary recess begins? Dozens of MPs are in the same situation, and their constituencies contain about 5.5 million people. Will he reflect on that situation and discourage the Post Office from beginning and finishing the consultation during recess? Otherwise, millions of people will be disfranchised because Members of all parties will be unable to express their views.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Hendry. Apologies: Mr. McFadden.

Patrick McFadden: I do believe that the consultation can proceed during a parliamentary recess. I believe that our constituents can still take part even if Parliament is not meeting. The timetable was set out in some detail about a year ago, so we would not recommend its suspension for a few months during the parliamentary recess.

Charles Hendry: I very much look forward to the opportunity to answer questions rather than just ask them.
	How can the Minister tolerate the restrictive practices being imposed by the Post Office on rural and other shops where post offices are being forced to close? Is he aware that sub-postmasters, who were not allowed to have a national lottery terminal, be a PayPoint outlet or work with carriers other than the Royal Mail simply because they had a post office are now being told that they may not offer those services simply because they no longer have a post office? Does he understand how angry postmasters are that they face losing compensation simply because they want to help what is left of their business to survive? Does he not think that it is utterly wrong that the policies of Post Office Ltd should lead to the closure not just of post offices but of many of the private businesses that house them?

Patrick McFadden: The compensation arrangements for sub-postmasters leaving the network were negotiated by Post Office Ltd and the National Federation of SubPostmasters. They are fair in relative terms, and quite rightly so. They amount to some 28 months' compensation for sub-postmasters leaving the network. People will not be banned from having a lottery terminal or entering into an arrangement that would put them into competition with the post office down the road, but their compensation will be adjusted. That was defended by the general secretary of the NFSP when he spoke to the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
	As for closures, I can only remind the hon. Gentleman of the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), who recently said in the House:
	"Let me make it clear that we fully expect the network to shrink in size. We have never given a guarantee that no post offices will close".—[ Official Report, 19 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 947.]
	That is the position of the hon. Gentleman's party.

Post Office Closures

John Barrett: What recent representations he has received on post office branch closures; and if he will make a statement.

Patrick McFadden: Again, the Department regularly receives representations on a wide range of issues in relation to the network, including the current closure programme and the establishment of new outreach outlets under the Post Office's network change programme. To date, the Post Office has published and put out to local public consultation 34 of the 41 area plans in the current programme.

John Barrett: I thank the Minister for that answer. Previous post office closure plans decimated the post office network in Edinburgh, under both the previous Conservative Government and the present Labour Government. All the post office closures—we are expecting the next wave in August—have been done without any strategy or any plan in mind for the entire city. Why should it be any different this time, and what reassurances can he give the residents of Edinburgh that that will not happen again?

Patrick McFadden: One of the differences between the programme that we are in the middle of and previous programmes is that the previous one, for example, was entirely voluntary for sub-postmasters leaving the network. Perhaps that caused less local protest, but as a strategy to plan the network it may not have been the best option; such an approach could leave holes in the network in the hon. Gentleman's city. This time, access criteria will broadly mean that people in urban areas should be within a mile of a post office and people in rural areas within 3 miles. That will help with planning the future shape of the network. It means that some sub-postmasters who do not want to leave the network are being asked to leave, and I understand that that is difficult for them, but it also means that the network is being planned in both urban and rural areas.

Gavin Strang: Does my hon. Friend agree that a worrying aspect of the last closure programme was that, no doubt for business reasons, a disproportionate number of the closures were in working class areas, often in major cities and near former council schemes, some of which had a high proportion of elderly people? As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said, we do not have the Edinburgh proposals yet, but is there any prospect that that will not happen this time around? We had quite a hammering last time, not least in Edinburgh, East.

Patrick McFadden: My right hon. Friend makes a fair point about the importance of the post office network to people on lower incomes, and that is why this Government have put so much public funding into supporting it. The network faces major changes in how people do business, but we are supporting it with up to £1.7 billion over the next few years. Without that public support and strong commitment from the Government, thousands more branches would be under threat. We have put that support in place precisely because we appreciate the value of the network to the constituents whom my right hon. Friend mentions.

Andrew Selous: Is it not the case that we would not be in this sorry mess and having to close about a third of the network if the Government did two things? First, they should allow a much greater range of Government services to be provided through post offices, and secondly they should allow and indeed encourage the Post Office to be far more entrepreneurial in the range of services that it provides.

Patrick McFadden: I quite agree that the Post Office needs to be entrepreneurial in the range of services that it provides. It has successfully expanded into foreign currency and insurance, for example. In terms of Government work, I know that the Post Office is highly interested in biometric identity management for passports and driving licences and, possibly in the future, identity cards. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman's party has its way, the Post Office will not even get the chance to bid for that Government work.

Linda Gilroy: A moment ago, the Minister said that this process was very difficult, and he will know from the Adjournment debate that I had last week that I understand that. However, may I commend for his further consideration the point that I set before him then? When we have a Devon cluster that includes one of the most sparsely populated counties in the country together with an urban area with some of the most deep-seated poverty, perverse proposals emerge, such as the closures of Pennycomequick, Beaumont road and St. Leven's valley post offices. Does he really think that he is getting value for money from the £1.7 billion when it produces such perverse proposals to close busy post offices?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend has made her point, and it is clear that she believes that it is wrong for her city to be in the same closure plan as a major rural area such as the county of Devon. Of course, that has happened in several places around the country where urban and rural areas have been combined for this purpose. It is difficult, but the access criteria are intended to ensure that we have a stable network for the future in both rural and urban areas.

Nicholas Winterton: May I make a plea to the Minister to have a further discussion with the Post Office about these closures, bearing in mind the representations that he is receiving from both sides of the House? This is not a party issue: we are talking about an important public service. In my constituency, six post offices face closure and that is under consultation now, but they are profitable enterprises. Why should profitable enterprises be closed, and why should rural areas be put at a further disadvantage by the access criteria? I am deeply concerned: will he not have further talks with the Post Office about its proposals?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) thinks that urban areas are being put at a disadvantage; the hon. Gentleman thinks that rural areas are being put at a disadvantage. He should perhaps be cautious about saying that the post offices that are closing are profitable. The post office network is losing £0.5 million a day. When we take into account not just the costs to sub-postmasters but the central costs borne by Post Office Ltd for services such as cash handling, IT and so on, we see that three out of four post offices in the country run at a cost to Post Office Ltd. That is why it is so important that we have stepped in with a large-scale public subsidy, which did not exist under the last Government.

Joan Walley: May I confirm that my hon. Friend is aware of my concern about the way in which the consultation has been done in deprived urban areas? Let me also tell him that the closure programme that we have seen so far will be as of nothing if something is not done about the Department for Work and Pensions issuing the Post Office card account to the Post Office. Will he do all that he can to ensure that the Post Office retains that card account?

Patrick McFadden: I fully understand the importance of the Post Office card account to the future of the network. The National Federation of SubPostmasters has made its views on that matter very clear to me and to right hon. and hon. Members from all parties. My hon. Friend will understand, too, that this is a commercial tendering process and the DWP will consider bids from around the country. I am sure that the Post Office has put in a very strong bid, but the decision will be announced later this year.

Fuel Poverty

Danny Alexander: What plans he has to tackle fuel poverty among users of fuel heating oil.

Malcolm Wicks: The Government have a range of measures to help with fuel bills, including grants to improve energy efficiency and the winter fuel payment scheme. The Government are also exploring the role that alternative technologies can play in alleviating fuel poverty—I think that that will be directly relevant to the hon. Gentleman's constituency—and we are looking to provide connections to deprived communities off the gas network, as gas remains the cheapest form of heating.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will know that in constituencies such as mine, fuel heating oil is the principal source of heating in most communities. It is also used in older houses in remote areas, which are more expensive to make energy-efficient. Huge oil price rises and an already expensive source of heating have conspired to put fuel oil users even more into fuel poverty than they were before. Will the Minister ensure that in his fuel poverty strategy heating oil users have top priority? Will he ensure that energy companies are encouraged to take the fuel poverty measures that they are being asked to take by the Government, with specific reference to fuel heating oil users—although, of course, they will not be customers of gas companies, in particular?

Malcolm Wicks: I understand the difficulties faced by those who are heavily reliant on oil for their heating, for example in rural and island communities. Of course, the price of a barrel of oil worldwide has doubled in just one year. I think that some of the work that we can do to connect people to the gas system, where appropriate, is helpful. The development of our microgeneration strategy is very relevant, because technologies such as ground source heat pumps can offer some relief in future. That is why we have earmarked £3 million from the low-carbon building programme as a pilot to see how microgeneration can help to tackle fuel poverty.

David Taylor: As a former heating oil user in a rural area, I am aware of some of its advantages. At the moment, a typical 1,000-litre tank, when full, can contain oil that is valued at well over £600 and is quite attractive to would-be thieves. The loss of such oil, of course, would push rural people even further into poverty. What discussions might the Minister have with his fellow Ministers to alert people, and the police in particular, in such areas to the risks that are being run?

Malcolm Wicks: I certainly do understand the risk and, sadly, there have been well-reported cases in recent days, as the price of fuel has increased. Obviously, the police will take whatever action they can. If I feel it helpful to discuss the matter with Home Office colleagues, I will certainly do so.

Richard Ottaway: I do not for a second dismiss the issue of poverty, but is not the problem the price of fuel oil? Will the Minister tell the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries producers that they are killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and will he tell the House what research the Government are conducting and encouraging on alternative fuel sources, such as hydrogen, to replace oil?

Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to say to my MP—the ballot is always secret—that the Prime Minister is leading from the front on the issue. He attended the Jeddah meeting called by the King of Saudi Arabia, and a process is under way that will lead to a high-level London summit later this year. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are active on many fronts on this difficult issue, but things are not easy. The Saudis have announced a significant increase in supply, but other countries do not have the capacity easily to do the same. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking into the issue. Given that we published our renewable energy strategy consultation document last week, and given the announcement about nuclear, he knows that we are active on the issue of finding alternative energy sources to play a part in the diverse energy strategy that Britain requires.

Russell Brown: It is not only heating oil but liquefied petroleum gas that poses a significant financial problem for households in rural areas, although I accept that LPG is a much lesser cost. I applaud everything that my hon. Friend has said so far this morning, but there is deep concern in many households in remote rural areas. In particular, there are pensioner households that do not qualify for any support through, say, pension credit, but have to spend between 18 and 22 per cent. of their income on heating oil. That is not acceptable in 2008.

Malcolm Wicks: I do understand that concern, and of course all of us are concerned about the most vulnerable, elderly households. All pensioner households receive the winter fuel payment, which for the over-80s will be £400 this year. For the over-60s it will be £250—a significant increase. Insulating the homes of Britain's elderly, and improving the energy efficiency of those homes, is crucial. We are spending record amounts of money, through Warm Front and the carbon emissions reduction target, on energy efficiency programmes. That could be of particular relevance to my hon. Friend's constituency.

Christopher Fraser: How many households does the Minister think will be helped by the £1 million grant recently given to the east of England under the low-carbon buildings programme, given that 1 million people in the region are thought to be in fuel poverty, and more than 50 per cent. of households in my constituency of South-West Norfolk have no access to mains gas?

Malcolm Wicks: I said that the programme is a pilot study. It is a new initiative from our low-carbon buildings programme. The number of households affected will be in the hundreds; I will give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure in writing. I would have thought that he might welcome the fact that we are trying to use new technologies to tackle the old social evils of fuel poverty, an issue that we are determined to pursue. We are spending record amounts of money on CERT and Warm Front; there is some misunderstanding about that. In the current spending period, the figures will increase by £680 million, compared with the previous spending period, and will reach about £2.3 billion. There is a lot of scope for improving the thermal efficiency of our housing, and as we move forward we need to, and will, complement our energy strategy with a strong energy efficiency programme. Our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working on that.

Brian Iddon: What role does my hon. Friend think that speculators are playing in talking up the price of oil, and has he given any consideration to the paper that Dr. Richard Pike, chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, published in Petroleum Review? It puts the proposition that oil companies have double the reserves that they claim to have.

Malcolm Wicks: I promise my hon. Friend that I will read the article. My copy has not yet arrived—it has obviously been delayed at  Petroleum News—but I will read it. The important point is that a great debate is going on about what lies behind the rise in the price of a barrel of oil, which has doubled. We would emphasise the fundamentals: China, India and other countries are fuelling their growing economies with energy, and there is a mismatch between supply and demand, hence the earlier dialogue about the need to increase supply, which the Saudis are doing. Many OPEC nations emphasise speculation, and we would not entirely dismiss the speculative element. We are working with OPEC and the international energy bodies to try to produce a shared analysis of what lies behind that very grave problem, and I do promise to look at the article.

Steve Webb: The Minister mentioned connecting households to the gas mains, but he will know that in many areas the capital cost of doing so is enormous. Are the Government planning any assistance schemes to help fuel-poor households that do not have gas connections simply to get connected?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes. In the Department earlier this week we were discussing with the relevant bodies plans to increase the numbers of households that are connected to the gas grid. There is significant scope for it, but I do not want to exaggerate the situation, because many such households will never be connected to the mainstream gas grid. We need to work hard at providing other options for those people, so that they have some of the choices that many of us in urban areas take for granted, hence my emphasis, in reply to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), on using microgeneration imaginatively to try to provide choices for some households in isolated communities.

Mark Prisk: Every 1 per cent. rise in fuel prices pushes another 40,000 people into fuel poverty and if, as forecast, the cost of heating our homes rises by 40 per cent. this winter, that will mean another 1.6 million such people. What specifically will the Government do to help those people? Will the Minister confirm that the Government are still absolutely committed to their own target of eradicating fuel poverty which is now within less than two years?

Malcolm Wicks: We are going to do our utmost to tackle the problems of fuel poverty, but the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fundamentals. We are faced with extraordinary increases in prices—global prices. I have mentioned oil, but the wholesale prices of gas and of coal are going up to astronomical levels, and it is very difficult territory for business and for all our constituents. So since 2000, we have spent £20 billion on fuel poverty benefits and programmes—I know that the hon. Gentleman will not dismiss that figure; I have said already that the Chancellor has agreed to increase winter fuel payments quite significantly; we are increasing the amounts of money spent on energy efficiency payments through CERT and through Warm Front; and the Secretary of State has brokered an agreement with the six major supply companies to increase their social tariffs from £50 million now to £150 million in a year or two's time. That is a significant programme, but we are not complacent. We are worried about the situation's impact on vulnerable people, and we will do everything possible to protect those decent citizens of ours.

Cuba

David Chaytor: What recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart on the position of UK firms which trade with Cuba.

Gareth Thomas: My Department has not received any formal complaint from UK-based firms affected by US trade sanctions against Cuba. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office makes the Government's position clear every year by voting against the US trade embargo on Cuba—including aspects of its extraterritorial legislation—at the United Nations General Assembly. The last such vote was on 30 October 2007.

David Chaytor: Each year, thousands of British people visit Cuba as tourists, and the liberalisation process that has started in that country means that there are huge opportunities for British firms to do business. I welcome last month's decision by European Union Foreign Ministers to lift political sanctions against Cuba, but does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that more could be done to explain to British businesses the opportunities that there will be to expand their operations in Cuba in the years ahead?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that UK Trade and Investment has the equivalent of almost three full-time staff working on trade activities in Havana precisely to increase awareness of the trading opportunities with Cuba, as my hon. Friend suggests we should. We want those staff to continue to engage with the business community both in the UK and Cuba and to go on promoting increased trade between our two countries.

Sellafield

Gordon Prentice: When he expects the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to make its recommendation to him for the preferred bidder for the new parent body organisation for the Sellafield Site Licence Company.

Malcolm Wicks: The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is running a competition to select a new parent body organisation for the Sellafield Site Licence Company. Ownership will enhance the company's performance. The NDA is evaluating the four bids received for this competition against agreed evaluation criteria. The results of the evaluation are expected later this month.

Gordon Prentice: It is a little known fact that only one nuclear power station anywhere in the world has been wholly dismantled; I am thinking of Three Mile Island. Even decommissioned structures are still hazardous. My question for the Minister is this: what factors will he take into account when deciding which company will be responsible for the clean-up of Sellafield, or is he simply going to rubber-stamp the recommendation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority?

Malcolm Wicks: I am pleased about—indeed, rather proud of—the fact that after several decades in which no action was taken, it is this Government who now have a clear strategy on decommissioning our existing nuclear sites. Whatever the arguments and controversies about future nuclear, we have an ethical duty to ensure adequate decommissioning and clean-up. We are looking to the competition to get companies to bring world-class management to the task so that we can spread best practice and innovation and drive forward efficiency. We have four strong bidders and that is what we need to do. We cannot duck this task. We may wish that we did not have to do it, but we are doing it and we will do it in the most competent and cost-effective way.

Agency Workers

Stephen Hepburn: What plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals on employment rights for agency workers.

John Hutton: I am glad to say that at the EU Employment Council on 9 June, agreement was reached on the terms of a proposed directive on temporary agency workers. The terms of the directive will provide new and important protections against unfair treatment and maintain essential flexibility to meet the needs of the UK labour market.
	The timing of legislation in the United Kingdom will depend on agreement between Parliament and Council as this is a matter for co-decision, as my hon. Friend knows. I hope to bring forward the necessary domestic legislation as soon as possible.

Stephen Hepburn: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. One of the main proposals coming forward is to give agency workers the same protection as full-time workers after 12 weeks. What does he intend to do about employers who sidestep those protections by, say, employing somebody for 11 weeks and four days?

John Hutton: The 12-week qualifying period to which my hon. Friend referred was recorded in the agreement reached between the Trades Union Congress and the CBI; that was the platform that allowed final agreement to be reached in the European Council. The directive also has strong anti-avoidance provisions. Obviously, the final details are still to be resolved in the process of co-decision making. However, the benchmark of proper protection has been established, and our view is that the directive must ensure that the obvious abuses to which my hon. Friend referred are dealt with fully and fairly.

Dennis Skinner: When he is drawing up these proposals, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that after the end of the second world war, large numbers of people from eastern Europe—"displaced persons" they were called—came to Britain and other countries looking for jobs? Literally thousands of them started working in the pits. There were no middlemen and no agencies—nobody had ever heard of such things. Nobody was taking a cut of their wages; they were paid exactly the same as the others of us who were down the pits and they were affiliated to the appropriate trade union. If we could do that post-1945, why do we need these middlemen now? Let us get rid of them and get on with the job. Let us get back to giving the people who work for the money all the money, rather than there being a cut for somebody else.

John Hutton: I recognise what my hon. Friend has said about the mines and the immediate post-war period, but I am sure he will know, as he is very much in touch with the modern world, that the labour market today is a very different thing. Many workers in many industries have chosen and prefer agency working to other forms of employment. That is true in many sectors—in health, in teaching, in many of the managerial professions and in computing and technology. It would be quite wrong to take away from workers the opportunity of working in that way. I hope that he and I agree that where there is agency working, there should be proper and fair protection for agency workers so that they are on an equal footing with regular, full-time employees. I hope that that is what the directive that we have agreed in Europe will ensure.

Post Office Closures

Simon Hughes: What assessment he has made of the effects of post office closures on local shopping centres.

Patrick McFadden: The Government recognise the important social and economic role of post offices in the communities they serve. In developing the area plans that are going through at the moment, Post Office Ltd considers the impact on local communities among other factors such as the profitability of the branch, local demographics and the availability of public transport.

Simon Hughes: If Mr. Sale and his family, who ran the Ilderton Road post office in Rotherhithe for 30 years until it was closed yesterday afternoon against their will and that of the community, decide that they can no longer continue in business, and the effect of that is that the whole parade of shops goes downhill, what will the Government do to help?

Patrick McFadden: Mr. Sale, like all the sub-postmasters who are leaving the network as a result of this programme, will shortly receive, if he has not already received, the compensation that has been negotiated between the National Federation of SubPostmasters and Post Office Ltd in recognition of the important efforts that he and many others like him have made to the community over the years.

Mr. Speaker: I call Anne Begg.

Anne Begg: I thought we were on topical questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will see what I can do for you.

David Kidney: Marston road in Stafford is a local shopping centre in that it is a collection of small shops, including a post office. On Tuesday, Post Office Ltd announced the closure of that post office, which serves the local population, including many elderly disabled people in sheltered housing. Obviously we cannot transfer the post office to another shop locally, but would there be the possibility of an outreach service to one of the sheltered housing schemes so that at least people can stay in their locality instead of having to go somewhere else for their post office?

Patrick McFadden: It is difficult to comment on the immediate circumstances that my hon. Friend raises. However, he should be aware that on 9 April Post Office Ltd announced that it was going to pilot the outreach concept, which had previously been geared towards rural areas, in urban areas as well. My advice to him would be to contact Post Office Ltd to see whether his constituency might have such a pilot, although I cannot guarantee that that will happen.

John Baron: May I press the Minister on a specific issue that the Government could implement to help the post office network? The National Federation of SubPostmasters has said it fears that a further 3,000 post offices will close if the post office network does not win the Post Office card account. In view of the Government's handling of this issue so far, what representations is the Minister going to make in order to help it to win that vital account?

Patrick McFadden: I do not think anyone is in any doubt about my view on this issue, which will be decided in a proper and legal way by the Department for Work and Pensions. I am sure that the last thing the hon. Gentleman would want is for me or another Minister to do something that would place the proper tendering process in jeopardy so that if the result that he wants happens, it is then challenged in the courts. That is why it is important that this is carried out properly according to the legal tendering rules. As I have said, the post office network is in a strong position to bid, and I am sure that it will bid strongly, but this has to be decided in a proper way by my colleagues at the DWP and announced in the normal fashion later this year.

Topical Questions

Simon Hughes: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

John Hutton: The central purpose of my Department is to help to ensure the success of UK business. We promote business growth and a strong enterprise economy, lead the better regulation agenda and champion free and fair markets, benefiting workers, consumers and companies. We are also the shareholder in a number of Government-owned assets, such as Royal Mail, and we work to secure clean and competitively priced energy supplies.

Simon Hughes: Given that answer, what is the Secretary of State's Department going to do about the Financial Services Authority? I appreciate that it is a Treasury responsibility too, but it is also a matter of business regulation. In the last few months, we have learned that the outgoing chairman was paid more than £250,000 after he stopped working, that the new chairman got a pay rise of 37 per cent., which took him to a salary of £662,000 after a £114,000 bonus, and that the man who was effectively sacked because of the Northern Rock debacle got a £612,000 golden pay-off, plus a £30,000 performance-related bonus. What is a Labour Government going to do to stop such absolutely scandalous pay for people at the top end, when our constituents can hardly scrape enough together to pay the household bills?

John Hutton: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is important that the FSA is able to recruit the right people and the best people.  [ Interruption. ] That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to reflect on. The one thing that I have learned from doing this job is that it is usually a good idea to leave matters to do with the Treasury to be dealt with by Treasury Ministers in this House.

Alun Michael: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential for our economic future to make the UK the safest place to do business online? Does he also agree that preventing internet-related crime is crucial to public and business confidence? Will he support initiatives to get industry to take the lead on this matter, in partnership with Parliament, the Government and civil society, to make the internet the safest place to undertake activities, and to ensure that confidence?

John Hutton: Yes, I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to what he has done in the past year or so, leading on some important work, which I hope will come to fruition. I agree that we need to discuss such matters carefully and closely with the industry. He referred to the importance of self-regulation in this regard, and I agree about that, but the Government have the responsibility to ensure that people and businesses in the UK who use the internet and do business online can do so safely, free from the fear of crime. I assure my right hon. Friend that active discussion is taking place between Ministers in a number of Departments to address the concerns that he and others have raised.

Alistair Carmichael: May I tell the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs that there is substantial and growing concern in the northern isles about the consequences for post offices if the post office network does not get the next generation of the Post Office card account? At present, just about every inhabited island in my constituency has a post office where people can use their card account. Will the Minister assure me that when the new contract is awarded, that will remain the case, and that questions of geography, as well as just bald population statistics, will be taken into account so that the matter is properly implemented?

Patrick McFadden: There is not a lot I can add to what I have already said about the card account, other than to repeat that I understand how important it is to the post office network. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that his constituency, which is a special part of the country, has good post office provision. We want to maintain that, and the large amount of public subsidy that we put into the network is partly in recognition of the special circumstances of constituencies such as his. I am sure that the Department for Work and Pensions will take into account all relevant factors in deciding the future of the contract.

Mr. Speaker: I call Anne Begg.

Anne Begg: I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.
	In the debate about the negative effects of the high oil price, the crucial part that the North sea oil and gas industry plays in the UK's economy sometimes gets lost. However, that contribution has been made at some cost to human life. This weekend marks the 20th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, in which 169 men died. I would welcome my right hon. Friend's reflections on the lessons that have been learned and need to continue to be learned as a result of the tragedy.

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning Piper Alpha. All hon. Members know the scale of the tragedy on that day 20 years ago. Since then, significant improvements in health and safety have been made across the UK continental shelf, and that is a tribute to the trade unions and employers who worked together to achieve that better result to improve the safety and security of workers, on whom we all fundamentally depend for our long-term national self-interest. I pay tribute to that work. We all continue to regret the tragic loss of life on that terrible day, but we stand ready to work with both sides of the industry always to push forward the barrier of safety and do more to protect workers who work in incredibly dangerous situations. The UK Government remain committed to achieving that result.

Alan Duncan: On the day that the price of crude oil has burst through $145 a barrel, and further to the earlier comments of the Minister for Energy, how much extra have the Saudis produced since the Prime Minister's visit to Jeddah? Will the Secretary of State explain how any extra production of heavy oil, when the world needs, if anything, light oil, would have any beneficial impact on global prices?

John Hutton: The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has indicated its willingness to provide an extra 500,000 barrels a day of crude oil, and that is welcome. I accept that most of that is heavy crude, and that there is an issue about the world's refining capacity to use that. However, the short-term problem cannot be fixed with the flick of a switch. It is important to deal with supply issues in the way my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy stated. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is addressing that in a way that gives the UK global leadership, and that is welcome. However, we must do more on the demand side, and what the G8 Energy Ministers agreed in Japan is important and will, I think, be confirmed at the G8 summit in Japan next week.
	We can do more about energy efficiency, developing new technologies, having an open view about trade and making it a win-win situation for oil-producing countries to invest in some of the new technologies. I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge our work to try to get stability in oil prices—hopefully a climate in which they can come down—and that the Jeddah process and the work of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are the right response to the problems that we face.

Alan Duncan: I hear what the Secretary of State says and he is right about the importance of the demand side, but is not the problem for Britain the fact that the Prime Minister simply does not understand global oil markets and that his so-called new deal, which was much vaunted when he visited Saudi Arabia, was in fact a deeply humiliating begging mission, which has led neither to any additional oil production that is of any use nor to any reduction in the pain that consumers face?

John Hutton: It is easy to sneer and be cynical about such matters and it is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman has taken that approach. The exercise is far from humiliating, as he described it. There is now a process and a discussion, which has never happened before, between the producing and consuming nations. That will be an essential way to try to resolve and find a way through the problems. What is the alternative? Not to talk and not to have a dialogue? That is completely ridiculous.

Kerry McCarthy: The Minister for Energy and I both visited Bristol port authority a couple of weeks ago on Friday to discuss the potential impact of the Severn barrage on the port's future business. Sadly, we did not quite meet on that occasion. Will either my right hon. Friend or the Minister for Energy tell the House whether the representations that were made to the Minister on that occasion about the potential impact of the barrage on the port's future will be fed into the Severn barrage feasibility study?

John Hutton: Yes, they certainly will. It is important to consider all the potential impacts, not only environmental but economic, of a barrage across the Severn. They must be taken into account in the consideration of all the various options. However, I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that, given the enormous potential of generating significant amounts of clean energy from such a barrage, we should proceed with the work, have everything on the table, be clear about the way forward and, when we are ready, make an informed, proper decision. However, as I said earlier, we must take into account both the economic and environmental impacts of such a proposal.

Sarah Teather: Does the Secretary of State think it was wise for the Prime Minister to reappoint the chief executive of Anglo American as one of the Government's most senior business advisers this week, in the light of recent controversies over the company's investments in Zimbabwe? Did the Secretary of State discuss the appointment with the Foreign Secretary?

John Hutton: It is a good and sensible appointment. All such matters are properly looked into before any such appointment is made.

John Barrett: The next wave of post office closures will be announced for Edinburgh in August. Is the Minister concerned about the precedent set in Greater Glasgow, where the post offices saved were in marginal Labour seats, given that Edinburgh, South and Edinburgh, North and Leith are highly marginal against the Liberal Democrats and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's seat is marginal against the Conservatives? Where does the Minister think the most marginal seats are in Edinburgh, and will the post offices be saved there?

Patrick McFadden: One of the beauties of topical questions is that we can do the whole thing twice. There is absolutely no political interference or consideration in the process at all. I therefore wholeheartedly and totally refute any inference that there is such.

Edward Timpson: I am grateful to the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs for his answer to my written question concerning the future of the sorting office in Crewe. Although that closure is an operational matter for Royal Mail, he must surely have a view, as the Minister for Postal Affairs and a portfolio-holding representative of the sole shareholder in Royal Mail—that is, the Government—on whether the closure of that sorting office is bad for the people of Crewe and bad for those who work there, who have been both long serving and hard working.

Patrick McFadden: Let me welcome the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson) on his first time at these questions—I do not know whether this is his first question in toto. My understanding is that no announcement has been made on the mail centre at Crewe. Royal Mail will of course be engaged in a process of modernisation and automation over the coming years, and it will have to take operational decisions about that. However, the hon. Gentleman's party cannot say that decisions about Royal Mail, along with a number of other difficult decisions, including about transport infrastructure, nuclear power, planning and so on, must all be put into a box marked "too difficult to decide".

Michael Weir: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems faced by those who are reliant on home fuel oil and propane gas is that there appears to be no regulator and no consumer body responsible for that market? Is he prepared to consider whether that market can be brought into the ambit of Ofgem, perhaps through the Energy Bill which is currently in the other place? That would at least allow the possibility of the same sort of help for that market, by way of social tariffs, for example, as for gas and electricity markets.

Malcolm Wicks: The Office of Fair Trading has responsibility if there is evidence of anti-competitive behaviour. If the hon. Gentleman has such evidence, that is the authority to which it should go. I made it clear earlier that we need to find and develop the alternatives for those rural communities and rural households. Microgeneration—I have mentioned heat pumps as an example—has a great deal of scope in helping to bring more diversity and choice to some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister keeps perpetuating the myth that 99.7 per cent. of people living in North Yorkshire will remain within 1 mile by road of an alternative branch. However, I could take him to villages that will be 3, 5 or even 7 miles away from the nearest branch. When there are poor roads, when not everyone has a car and when there is insufficient public transport, because of the rural nature of the county, how does he propose that people will get to those branches?

Patrick McFadden: I understand that anyone affected by post office closures is in a difficult position, because closures of course have consequences for post office customers. However, it is precisely because of that that we have put in place access criteria, in both urban and rural areas. In the face of losses of £500,000 a day, to which the hon. Lady did not refer, and a loss of custom amounting to 4 million customers a week in recent years, we have put in place the level of subsidy that will ensure a network of around 11,500 post offices, even after the closure programme is completed. Without the subsidy put in place by this Government, the Post Office would be in a much more difficult position than it is now.

Andrew Robathan: I am afraid that I want to take Ministers back to the Post Office card account. In 2003, I was the shadow Minister responsible for the Post Office, and I well remember the way the Government, using a list of 30 questions, tried to deter people from taking up a card account. It reached the position where they seemed to be saying, "Get your own bank account." What faith can we have in the Government's determination to keep the card account going, when in January 2006 they actually suggested that they did not wish to have another extension of the contract? Will the Minister assure me that the Government will definitely go for the best contract, not the cheapest contract, when the Post Office card account tender comes in?

Patrick McFadden: The suggestion that the Government are somehow to blame for the changes in the way people choose to live their lives is one that I reject. Nine out of 10 new pensioners choose to have their pension paid directly into a bank account. I cannot add anything further on the decision on the contract. As I have said, that will be decided by the Department for Work and Pensions. I am sure that the Post Office is extremely keen to win it, and I am sure it has put in a strong bid, but that must be decided in a proper, legally robust manner.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business next week will be as follows:
	Monday 7 July—Estimates [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on ticketing and concessionary travel on public transport, followed by a debate on science budget allocations. Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Tuesday 8 July—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill, followed by consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill.
	Wednesday 9 July—Opposition day [unallotted day] [first part]. There will be a debate on the cost of living on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party, followed by motion to approve the draft Council Tax Limitation (Maximum Amounts) (England) Order 2008, followed by all stages of the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill  [Lords].
	Thursday 10 July—Remaining stages of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill  [Lords].
	The provisional business for the week commencing 14 July will include:
	Monday 14 July—Remaining stages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill  [Lords].
	Tuesday 15 July—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2008.
	Wednesday 16 July—Opposition day [18th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed if necessary by consideration of Lords amendments
	Thursday 17 July—The House will be asked to approve resolutions relating to the Intelligence and Security Committee, followed by a general debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2007-08.
	 The information is as follows:
	 Ticketing and Concessionary Travel on Public Transport (Fifth Report from the Transport Committee, HC 84); and Science Budget Allocations (Fourth report from the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, HC 215).

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the forthcoming business. This week, the Home Affairs Committee took evidence from Cherie Blair on crime on our streets. I am sure that the Prime Minister will have welcomed her intervention on the issue. In her evidence, she called for a more highly visible police presence on our streets. Today, a report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has said that front-line police sergeants spend half their day on paperwork, rather than on the beat. Indeed, one officer has said:
	"Click, click, tap, tap best describes my job; mainly recording performance figures".
	When can we have a debate in Government time on policing and bureaucracy?
	A report this week heavily criticised the Government's 24-hour licensing laws, saying that alcohol-related incidents have sharply increased. Indeed, one senior police chief constable has said that gang life is replacing family life and that in the last year the number of children admitted to hospital with stab wounds has doubled, so can we have a debate in Government time on mending our broken society?
	This week, it was revealed that the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, was told in 2003 of security flaws in the Government's handling of child benefit records. An internal report said that
	"fraudulent... activity was not being detected",
	that civil servants could
	"do anything without being detected",
	and that "the risks were serious". Four years later, those risks became real when the Government lost the personal details of 25 million people, so will the Chancellor make a statement to the House explaining why the Prime Minister, despite being told of these problems, did nothing?
	This week's Darzi review on the NHS was particularly flattering to my hon. Friends in the shadow Health team, as they appear to have written many of the proposals. Patient choice, for example, was announced by the Conservatives in September 2007; budgets linked to quality of care was announced by the Conservatives in June 2007; and the NHS constitution was announced by the Conservatives a year ago. Labour has clearly run out of its own ideas and has to resort to using ours, so may we have a debate on original thinking in government?
	May we also have a debate on communication by political parties? I would like to congratulate the right hon. and learned Lady on having recently appeared on the front page of the  Henley Standard . I agree with her that Labour did not come fifth in the Henley by-election because she launched the Equality Bill on polling day, as there are many other reasons why people do not want to vote for this Government at the moment. A debate on communication, however, would allow us to discuss the tactics used by the Liberal Democrats in the Henley by-election. The worst example of their negative campaigning and cynical approach was a leaflet that led to the following headline in the  Thame Gazette: "'Don't use us as a pawn', school tells Lib Dems". At a time when trust in politicians is so low, does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that such campaigning methods are irresponsible and that the Liberal Democrat party should be ashamed of itself?

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I let the right hon. Lady finish, but let me say that I would not expect a response to the tactic of using the business announced today as a means of attacking a political party in this way. The comments have been put on the record, but I would not expect the Leader of the House to respond to them.

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady raised the question of crime, particularly youth crime, and I would like to take the opportunity this morning to offer my condolences to the families of two people in the London borough of Southwark who lost their lives through violent knife crime in my constituency over the last four days. I pay tribute to the local police in Southwark under the leadership of Commander Malcolm Tillyer, and to all the police in our cities for their work in trying to tackle the menace of knife crime. They are working as part of a team with the Government, and we will shortly produce our youth crime action plan, which will be put before the House by the Home Secretary. The policing Green Paper will follow shortly. I remind the right hon. Lady that we are only too well aware that, although violent crime has fallen by 30 per cent. over the past 10 years, there remains the particular problem of young people carrying knives. The age at which people are carrying knives and becoming victims of knife crime is falling. That is a worrying trend which we are working on tackling.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the security of data. We all want data to be gathered accurately, shared in the interests of good public services and to work as proof against fraud. She will know that the Poynter review outcome has been reported and is now being acted on.
	The right hon. Lady also mentioned the Darzi review, which was the subject of a statement on Monday in this House and the other place—on the 60th anniversary of the NHS. Our view, set out on Monday, is that the Darzi review brought forward by the Secretary of State for Health is the next stage in building on and then improving the quality of care in the NHS, so that we can move on from having had to rescue the NHS when it was on its knees. The big question when we came into government was whether we would have an NHS in the future—would it even survive? Now, the question is how we improve the quality of care in the NHS. If the Opposition have joined us in that approach, we welcome them.

Gordon Prentice: Identity fraud costs the UK £1.7 billion every year and I am its latest victim. Last month, in a card skimming scam, £3,500 was taken from my bank account and subsequently reinstated with a note on the statement, "Smile—reimbursement", as if I had something to be happy about. When I contacted the bank, it refused to tell me about the progress of the fraud investigation—the shutters came down. This is a huge problem that is touching thousands of people every day, and we need an urgent debate on this issue of great concern.

Harriet Harman: I take my hon. Friend's comments as a suggestion for a topical debate. We all want the convenience of credit card transactions, but we must ensure that we work with banks and through the Serious Fraud Office and the police, as well as with Departments such as the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, to bring it all together. Fraud is not a victimless crime and we need to work together.

Simon Hughes: The Leader of the House has announced that we will have a full day to debate the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill, which is an urgent measure that has widespread general support throughout the House. Can we ensure that before we break for the summer recess we have all the time we need for the Bill to pass between both Houses? It would be far better to get agreement in a conciliatory way on the important balance between liberty and victims' rights, rather than force a measure up and down the corridors of this building. I hope she agrees to give us the time that we need next week and thereafter.
	In that context, may I thank the Leader of the House for what she said in reflecting the question asked by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about young people and crime? The House is getting increasingly worried—not only were two adults in our borough of Southwark stabbed to death, but last week in north London, a young man, Ben Kinsella, was stabbed, and in New Cross in the past few days, two people have been found brutally stabbed—that it is beginning to feel as if there is a real evil in our society. Although the numbers are not enormous, they are horrifying and each incident is an absolute tragedy.
	We had a debate on knife crime, which was welcome, but before we break for the summer can we have another debate on responsibility towards and of young people? I include in that the opportunity to debate the fact that high street banks are offering Visa cards to 11-year-olds, which must be scandalous and must not add to anybody's parental sense of being able to control their young people.
	I have just two other requests to make. This week, we have rightly been celebrating the 60th anniversary of the NHS, which we all rejoice in. We had a big statement on the Darzi report this week. Before we break for the summer, can we have a debate on NHS accountability to the public—not what the service is, but how people can influence what it is locally?
	Can we also have a debate on the linked great public service of which we are about to celebrate the anniversary? Next month is the anniversary of the passing into law of the Old Age Pensions Act 1908. This week, Southwark pensioners came here to start their celebrations, and there will be other events because the campaign began in Southwark. Can we have a debate on what has gone wrong with our society, when pensioners still have to apply for a top-up to make up a minimum income and people are given golden farewells from the Financial Services Authority of £600,000 and more yet they presided over a completely incompetent job of managing Northern Rock?

Ken Purchase: That is the nature of capitalism.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that that is the nature of capitalism, but we have a Labour Government who are presiding over pensioners underpaid and people hugely overpaid.
	Finally, although it is right that we are to debate Zimbabwe today, I have asked several times for a debate on relations between the United Kingdom and China. May we have such a debate before the end of term and before the Olympic Games?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman asked about the process for the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill. I can tell him and the House that we have no intention of forcing the Bill through. It simply constitutes a recognition that we need to react to a court judgment that would have had the effect of allowing offenders out on appeal and requiring the Crown prosecution services, having reviewed cases in the pipeline, to drop them because the anonymity of witnesses could not have been protected when the cases came to trial.
	My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has been discussing the issues and giving full briefings to Members in all parts of the House. Any Member who wants a briefing from him or his ministerial team should let him know; he would be happy to provide it before next week's debate. The Bill will be published today, so Members will be able to see it. My right hon. Friend has also been having extensive discussions with peers in all parties, and with Cross Benchers. There is a great deal of expertise and interest in the matter in the House of Lords. The idea is to secure as much agreement as possible, along with recognition that we need to act quickly because of the cases that are in the pipeline.
	One of the fail-safes is the undertaking given by the ministerial team that the Bill is expected to last for a year at the most. It will either fold into the victims and witnesses Bill announced in the Queen's Speech, or contain a sunset clause. We want to get it as right as we possibly can, but that fail-safe is there. Members are encouraged to talk to the ministerial team.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned youth crime. I send my condolences to the bereaved family of Ben Kinsella, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we all feel a sense of shock and horror after discovering that the deaths that we thought had resulted from a fire in New Cross now appear to have resulted from stabbings. Each of those deaths is a great tragedy, and each, as the hon. Gentleman said, instils a sense of fear and dismay that we must work together to tackle.
	In mentioning the high street banks and the Visa cards, the hon. Gentleman put his finger on the fact that this is not just a question for the police. All agencies, local authorities and organisations in the voluntary and the private sector must work together to deal with it. We are drawing up a youth crime action plan and a policing Green Paper, but I shall ensure that the House has the opportunity that it clearly wants to focus on these issues.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the accountability of the national health service to the public. There is to be an Adjournment debate on health today, and no doubt there will be further discussion during consultation on the NHS constitution. The draft consultation document was launched on Monday.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to pensioners. There are two issues at stake—pensioners' income levels and standards of living. I work closely with the Southwark pensioners action group, of which he and I are patrons and supporters. He should bear in mind that, of all the groups who are better off since we came to Government, pensioners—especially women pensioners—have benefited most, but we are not complacent and we want to do more.
	I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about pay at the top. We must show responsibility over pay, not only in the public sector but in the private sector, and it must be connected to performance. High pay must be connected to good performance, not bad performance.

David Clelland: When can we have a debate on support for carers and the carer's allowance? Although the increase in the earnings threshold to £95 was welcome, it remains the case that for every £1 increase above the threshold carers lose the whole allowance. That means that they can end up more than £40 a week worse off. They also lose the allowance when they retire, although they have to continue their caring role. Surely it is not beyond the wit of Government to come up with a more sensible system to ensure that carers continue to be supported when their circumstances change.

Harriet Harman: In raising the question of financial support for those who do the important work of caring for older and disabled relatives, my hon. Friend puts the spotlight on the element of that support that remains unsatisfactory. It is being kept under review by the Department for Work and Pensions and, in particular, by the Carers Commission. We want people who are caring for family members not to suffer financially as a result, and not to have to give up their jobs because they are worse off if they stay at work.
	We are proceeding with a range of activities following consultation on the carers review. The carer's allowance is being specifically reviewed, and I shall bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of those who are conducting the review.

Andrew MacKay: The Leader of the House will have noted the grave concern about the future of Post Office card accounts during topical questions today, and will be aware of it from experience in her constituency. It is important for the House to have a chance to express its view in a proper debate before a final decision is made. I appreciate that it may well not happen next week, but will the right hon. and learned Lady guarantee that before the decision is made we have a full debate on the Floor of the House?

Harriet Harman: The House has taken the opportunity to discuss post offices on many occasions, not least on Opposition days, during topical questions and in numerous Adjournment debates.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised the important question of the contract for the Post Office card accounts. As I explained during last week's business questions, a procurement process is under way and it would not be right for me, as a Minister, to comment on it. All I can do is report to the right hon. Gentleman, as I did last week, that the Post Office says it is making a vigorous bid for the contract. I do not think that a debate in the House would necessarily facilitate the process of awarding that contract; I think that everyone concerned is well aware of Members' views.

Nick Palmer: The BBC is launching a streaming service whereby BBC 1 will be available on the internet. Although the technological advance is entirely welcome, does the Leader of the House agree that there is a fear in the internet community that institutions and individuals with internet access but no television sets will suddenly be forced to buy television licences even though they have no interest in watching television? Will she draw the matter to the attention of ministerial colleagues, so that either we can have a debate or a clear statement can be made by the BBC or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?

Harriet Harman: I think that through his question my hon. Friend has shown himself to a member of the internet community. I know of his long-standing interest in the internet. He has raised an important point about what might be an unintended consequence, and I shall bring it to the attention of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I shall also ask the Department to write to him, and to place a copy of the letter in the House of Commons Library.

George Young: May we have a debate on the economy? The Leader of the House will recall that we used to have regular debates on the subject in Government time, one of which used to take place in July. However, they have died away. We had no debate on the Chancellor's pre-Budget report last November, for instance. Given the widespread concern about the direction and performance of the United Kingdom economy, is it not time that we revived the tradition of debating it in Government time?

Harriet Harman: As the House will know, we have debated economic issues during the passage of the Finance Bill, but I am aware that that is not the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. I am also aware of the concern that although days of debate routinely follow the Budget, no such days of debate follow the innovation of the pre-Budget report.
	Bearing in mind that we have provided a day's debate for the draft legislative programme but have not reduced the number of days of debate that follow the Queen's Speech, we are considering whether it might be possible to find time to debate the pre-Budget report by adjusting the number of days available for debating the Queen's Speech. We need to discuss the issue through the usual channels and with the shadow Leader of the House and other Members, and I shall be happy to do that. If we are to add extra days of debate on the economy, we shall have to take them away from somewhere else. We therefore need to discuss the way in which we order our priorities, and I am happy to share that discussion with Members.

Julie Morgan: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that this June was the first Gypsy Roma Traveller history month, which was supported by the Government and which had the aim of educating the public about the long history of Gypsies and Travellers in this country. Is she aware of the success of that month? I attended several events, which were very lively and full of people—the public, Gypsies and Travellers together. Will she arrange a debate to consider that history month's effectiveness in reducing prejudice?

Harriet Harman: The Government have been pleased to support that history month, and I thank my hon. Friend for telling us about the success of the events in her constituency and more widely in Wales. I will draw those matters to the attention of the Secretary of State for Wales.

Sarah Teather: Will the Leader of the House make parliamentary time available to discuss the proposal to establish a national bioethics commission? Many Members had hoped that we would be able to raise that issue during the discussions on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill a week on Monday, but it seems that the Bill is too tightly drawn for us to be able to force a discussion or amend it in that way. The UK is unique in western Europe in not having such a standing committee, and it would help us as legislators to have independent advice from an expert committee that looks at these issues in the round.

Harriet Harman: Responsibility for the important question of bioethics crosses the Select Committees that deal with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department of Health. We are keeping the matter under review. We must have a proper focus in the House for the important scrutiny and consideration of bioethics, and I know that a number of Members have raised the question of how we can ensure that. I do not have anything specific to announce to the hon. Lady on this, but I will take into account that it is an issue of concern to her and let her know if there is any progress.

Mark Lazarowicz: I was recently contacted by a constituent who wanted to get a copy of her birth certificate online. She visited a website called govcertificates.co.uk which she assumed was a Government website. It was not, however; it was a scam, where official information that people can get hold of fairly cheaply from Government websites is resold at a much increased price. Will my right hon. and learned Friend investigate, and hopefully close down, that operation, and may we also investigate more generally how such scams involving Government information work? I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) in calling for a debate on these issues, to see what progress we can make in tackling this type of scam and attempt to rip off consumers.

Harriet Harman: Once again, my hon. Friend has reminded us that fraud is not a victimless crime and people lose out as a result of it. I will draw his point to the attention of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I will ensure that the Home Office establishes that the Serious Fraud Office and local police know about this and are able to take action swiftly, if it has not already been taken.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. and learned Lady has announced the business for Tuesday, which includes consideration of the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill and the allocation of time motion. Does she understand that I do not belong to the cosy consensus? I am extremely worried about this matter. It is quite wrong that the Bill has not yet been published, and that it will pass through all its parliamentary stages on Tuesday. Does she not recognise that that is a case of a Bill being pushed through the House? That is wrong in principle. The public will not have an opportunity to make representations, and we will find it very difficult to amend the Bill. Surely this is government by decree and legislation by officials, not by parliamentary government?

Harriet Harman: I do not think any Member of this House is under the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is anything to do with anything cosy at all, and he is often nothing to do with anything to do with consensus either. I said in my initial remarks that all Members who have an interest in this—not just those involved in the usual channels—should contact the Ministry of Justice. I will tell the Secretary of State for Justice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman—who is extremely learned in matters of law and knowledgeable about these issues, and who has no doubt read and understood the judgment—would like to talk to him about how the Bill's proposals will work. I understand that the Bill has just been published, so the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have a chance to look at it. However, let me remind him and other Members that this situation is not of our choosing. It is never a good thing to have to take decisions that affect the criminal justice system in a hurry. We are doing this expeditiously because of the court decision; otherwise, certain prisoners might be allowed to be released on appeal, or prosecutors reviewing cases might be required to drop those cases and it will not be possible to bring offenders who have committed crimes to justice—crimes will go unpunished and victims will be left in the lurch.

Jon Trickett: During the debates on the Lisbon treaty, I warned the House that the European Commission had a clandestine plan that would undermine the clinical priorities of the NHS by promoting what has become known as health tourism. I also predicted that the plan would not see the light of day until after the House had ratified the treaty, and so it proved. However, even I was surprised that it decided to announce that on the 60th anniversary of the NHS. May we now have a topical debate on the unelected Commission's meddling in political affairs in this country and in NHS matters?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government remain committed to ensuring that where UK patients choose to travel abroad for care, the NHS retains the ability to decide what care it will fund. We have to make sure that the NHS makes the decisions, rather than their simply being made by people who have enough money to go abroad doing so to get treatment that otherwise would not be acceptable on the NHS. The current proposal is an initial text. It will be subject to change during future negotiations at EU level. The UK will be an important player in those negotiations, and we will work to ensure that the right legislative framework is developed. I will bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Michael Spicer: With reference to this afternoon's business, how can the Government set up an independent review body on Members' pay and then totally fail to back its recommendations?

Harriet Harman: If the hon. Gentleman attends the debate this afternoon, he will hear me explaining to the House why we have tabled a resolution setting out the Government position, part of which is the same as Sir John Baker's proposals, but part of which is different.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on the Law Lords' decision to deny victims of pleural plaques the appropriate compensation? My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that we are rapidly approaching the first anniversary of that decision, and despite assurances from the Justice Secretary and other senior Ministers, there is no tangible evidence that progress is being made. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that this is a disease that affects white, working-class, middle-aged men and women. The Justice Secretary must be reminded that this needs to be given some priority, in order to make sure that they get the compensation they are entitled to.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Those who during the course of their working life—working hard—contract a horrible and devastating disease deserve, at the very least, the appropriate compensation. He has drawn to the House's attention how long ago the Law Lords' decision was handed down. He will know that the Government have undertaken to consult on how we should respond to the Law Lords' decision, but I very much take on board his point that he wants us to get on with it, and I will make sure that ministerial colleagues in the relevant Departments understand that message loud and clear.

James Clappison: May we find time to debate early-day motion 1930?
	 [That this House expresses concern at reports of the closure of churches and the detention of Christians in Algeria; expresses particular concern at the case of Hanina Konider, a 37 year old Algerian woman facing prosecution as a result of being in possession of copies of the Bible; and urges the Government to raise this case and other cases of persecution of Christians in Algeria in the course of the discussions on the proposed Union for the Mediterranean due to commence in Paris on 13th July.]
	This early-day motion has been signed by 58 Members. On 13 July there is to be a meeting in Paris to discuss the proposed EU union of the Mediterranean. Will the Leader of the House specifically request the UK representation at that meeting to raise the question of the persecution of Christians in Algeria and the case of this unfortunate woman, and also to promote the case for freedom of religion generally in Mediterranean countries? Surely we do not want to be in any sort of union where it is an offence to possess a copy of the Bible.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman has made forcefully the point that is attracting support from Members in all parts of the House, in the form of his early-day motion 1930. There is no opportunity for Foreign Office questions before the House rises for the summer, so I will make sure that this issue is brought to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign Office. I will ask them to write to him explaining about the forthcoming international meetings, at which they will find the opportunity to raise this issue.

David Taylor: The successes of the 60th anniversary of the NHS at the weekend have rather overshadowed the first anniversary, on 1 July, of the end of second-hand smoke in enclosed public places and workplaces in England. Some 400,000 people have quit, there is 80 per cent. public support for the measure, and 40 per cent. of premises are recording an increase in business. As the chair of the all-party group on smoking and health, may I ask for a debate on tobacco control, perhaps based on my own early-day motion 1835?
	 [That this House welcomes the publication of the Department of Health's consultation document on the future of tobacco control; believes that there is an urgent need for action to ensure that a new generation of young people do not become smokers; and calls for legislation to be included in the 2008 Queen's Speech to end all displays of tobacco products at the point of sale, to end the sale of tobacco products from vending machines and to require all tobacco products in the UK to be sold in plain packaging.]
	We should review the various measures proposed in the early-day motion in the run-up to the Queen's Speech, which, as we know, will take place in exactly five months' time.

Harriet Harman: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of the effect on public health of ending smoking in public places. We need to make further progress on this important public health issue. This is definitely a job for the nanny state.

Julian Lewis: The Leader of the House has done a great service to Members' personal security by tabling the motion that will be debated later today on the non-disclosure of private home addresses. May I urge her to resist strongly any amendment that seeks to make an exception for Members' home addresses in their constituencies, just on the basis that these occasionally have to be published locally? Returning to wider business, may I also request a statement from a Home Office Minister about the strange case of the suspected terrorist who went on the run last week and who was believed to have been involved in a major suicide plot, and yet whose identity could not be disclosed while he was on the run, for legal reasons? Some of us find it very strange that dangerous people could be on the run without our having a chance of catching them, because no one would know who they were or what they looked like.

Harriet Harman: At first sight, the case of the person who had gone on the run but could not be named does sound a bit baffling, so I will ask a Home Office Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman, and to see whether the matter is not too secret for some light to be shed on it.
	The hon. Gentleman's first point brings to the House's attention the J. Lewis list. This is not the John Lewis list but the list of Members throughout the House who have signed his early-day motion. We have to base this issue on the security advice given to this House, which says that we should not publish our addresses, travel patterns or any information that could lead to Members being insecure and therefore unable to speak freely in this House. There will be an opportunity to debate this issue in the second of this afternoon's debates. I know that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has tabled an amendment, but I hope that he will not press it to a vote. We simply have to act —[ Interruption. ] I can now reassure the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey has not been selected, so I will not have to do what I would have done, which is to resist it and make sure that we get this issue sorted out once and for all.

Bob Spink: I know that the Leader of the House cares about the 9 million people in the UK who are deaf or hard of hearing, for whom lip-reading is an absolutely essential life skill. Could we have a debate on the Government's guidance to local authorities on the cost of lip-reading classes? Uncaring councils such as Conservative-controlled Essex county council are pricing vulnerable groups out of lip-reading classes, and I am sure that no one in this House wants to see that practice.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and this is one of the reasons why we have placed a specific duty on all organisations in the public sector, including local authorities, not to discriminate against people on grounds of disability, and to promote equality of opportunity and inclusion. The kind of services that he has described as being put at risk by Essex county council are exactly those that allow people to play a full part in the economy, by going out to work, and in the life of the community. I will raise this issue with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and see what it has to say about it.

Tony Baldry: May we have a debate next week on the ministerial code? If a Minister were to make a statement that the Government were not going to allow the building of housing on the green belt in eco-town proposals, but it later transpired that at the time of making that statement, the Minister was minded to allow commercial development to be built on the green belt in eco-town proposals, would the Leader of the House feel that the earlier statement was consistent with the principles of transparency and openness in the ministerial code?

Harriet Harman: We chose to have a topical debate on eco-towns because many Members in all parts of the House had asked for the topic to be eco-towns. All these issues were fully debated, and if a new one has arisen since then, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman write to the Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). If the issue involves the ministerial code, perhaps he should copy in the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Christopher Fraser: I raised concerns about the new NHS dental contract with the Health Secretary this time last year. In the light of the Health Committee's damning report, which confirms that access has not been improved and that dentists have no financial incentive to carry out complicated treatments, will the Leader of the House make time for a specific debate on NHS dentistry under the reforms, given that in this afternoon's Adjournment debate on the NHS in general, this issue may well be lost?

Harriet Harman: In fact, the Health Committee acknowledged that there has been a big increase in the number of dentists being trained, and the World Health Organisation says that child dental health in this country is the best in Europe. I know that that might seem a surprising statistic, but I offer it, for what it is worth. The fact that we intend to approach dental health by giving primary care trusts the power to commission dental services in their area was also welcomed. There has been a big investment in dental health in the last 10 years. More people than ever before have access to NHS dentistry, but we know that we have still not gone far enough. We intend to make further progress, and that will be part of the consultation under the NHS constitution.

John Baron: Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on Iran? She will be aware of recent and worrying developments, including talk about the Israelis preparing to strike, yet there is also a real concern that not enough is being done to explore the peaceful alternatives to military action, including reports that the Iranians would be prepared for an international consortium to enrich uranium for civilian use on Iranian soil.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The Foreign Secretary, who is here on the Front Bench with me because he is about to lead on the debate on Zimbabwe, tells me that there is 100 per cent. focus on diplomatic efforts in relation to Iran. No stone is being left unturned in that respect, and a package of measures to create a form of agreement to move forward has today been sent to the Iranians for their response.

Philip Hollobone: With the recent expansion of the European Union, there is a growing number of EU-registered vehicles in the UK. The law is quite specific, stating that as long as those cars are taxed in their country of origin, they can be used in the UK for six months in any 12-month period. However, there does not seem to be any effective enforcement mechanism to ensure that that rule is adhered to. May we have a joint statement by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing about what Her Majesty's Government intend to do about that worrying situation?

Harriet Harman: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of the relevant Ministers and ask them to write to him.
	May I correct what I said in answer to the previous question? It was not today that the package was sent by the Government to Iran about what negotiations there could be and how we could move forward peacefully, purposefully and diplomatically; it was two weeks ago.

BILL PRESENTED

Criminal Evidence (witness Anonymity)

Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Jacqui Smith, Secretary Des Browne, Mr. Secretary Woodward, the Solicitor-General and Maria Eagle, presented a Bill to make provision for the making of orders for securing the anonymity of witnesses in criminal proceedings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 7 July, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 134].

Topical Debate
	 — 
	Zimbabwe

David Miliband: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of Zimbabwe.
	I do not think that there could be a more appropriate topic for today's debate than the situation in Zimbabwe. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition expressed their complete agreement about the crisis in Zimbabwe and the British response, echoing the approach of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who speaks for the Opposition on foreign affairs, and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. I hope that we can build on that consensus and send a united message not just about our repugnance at the actions of the regime in Zimbabwe but about our call for all those in the region to fulfil their responsibilities to the people of Zimbabwe, and for the whole world to prepare for the rescue operation that will be necessary when there is a Government in Zimbabwe worthy of that name.
	It is also important to say by way of introduction that I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are in support of the President of Zambia, President Mwanawasa, who is currently ill in hospital. He is the chair of the Southern African Development Community and a man who has shown real tenacity in raising the Zimbabwe issue. We very much hope that he is able to make a recovery from his current illness.
	It is well known that over the past decade, Robert Mugabe has brought Zimbabwe to its knees. Its economy lies in crisis and now, as a result of the failure to establish a proper second round of the election, it is in limbo politically. Zimbabwe's people suffer from violence, intimidation and hunger, and the Mugabe Government have destroyed the basic infrastructure of the country—schools and hospitals are barely functioning.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Secretary of State give way?

David Miliband: I am conscious that many hon. Members will want to intervene. I shall try to let the hon. Gentleman come in later, but I shall see how I get on and how much time I have.
	In his determination to cling to power, Mugabe has turned on his own people. The opposition have been quelled, the judiciary corrupted and the press suppressed. At least 90 people have been killed in the violence in recent months and more than 3,000 injured. The prospects for Zimbabwe's people are economically bleak. Mugabe has ordered non-governmental organisations to stop delivering humanitarian aid, on which 5 million people depend.
	I spoke this morning to our ambassador in Harare, who confirmed that the economic situation remains dire and the political situation stuck in limbo. He explained that the regime wanted time to lick its wounds, but that the anger of the Zimbabwean people is being sustained by the waves of international condemnation that are being heard there. It is very important that they continue to be heard.
	I think that we agree that the elections of 27 June were a sham. The United Nations Secretary-General has said that the outcome did not reflect the true and genuine will of the Zimbabwean people. The G8 expressed its disgust at the Foreign Ministers' meeting that I attended in Japan last week. Many African voices are now speaking out against Mugabe, too—not just President Mandela but representatives of Botswana and Kenya. Many of us will believe that the recent AU summit did not meet the aspirations and hopes of the Zimbabwean people for a strong statement, but it is relevant to point out that the AU stated that the elections were not free and fair, and were scarred by violence. Sad as it is to say, that is an unprecedented judgment by the AU.

James Duddridge: What discussion has the Foreign Secretary had with Botswana, specifically in relation to rumours of the build-up of Botswana defence force troops on the border of Zimbabwe?

David Miliband: Obviously our high commission is in close contact with the Government of Botswana. I have not had a read-out on the matter in the past 48 or 72 hours, and even if I had, I would probably not want to go into it in great detail in such a public forum. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have seen the call by the Tanzanian Foreign Minister for preparations for a peacekeeping force that might be needed in Zimbabwe at some point. I am not able to give him more information on the Botswana issue immediately.

John Bercow: Although it is indeed welcome that the AU, and to an extent SADC, have pronounced robustly on the situation, including the manner of the conduct of the election, would the Foreign Secretary accept that precisely because the will of the people was not allowed to be expressed, it is important that the AU and SADC speak up for the right of the people of Zimbabwe to have the genuine result respected? They should not be looking for ways to bypass or circumvent that result by talking about a Government of national unity. The people have spoken.

David Miliband: Yes, I agree with that, as I shall explain.

Philip Hollobone: rose—

David Miliband: I promise that I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene before I conclude.
	Our goal is simple: to ensure that the Government of Zimbabwe reflect the will of the people of Zimbabwe. This is not about Britain versus Zimbabwe, still less about establishing a new British Government in Zimbabwe, but about having a Zimbabwean Government who deliver for their own people. The opposition have recognised the need for a broad-based Government and called for the formation of a transitional Government, recognising the unique political circumstances that now exist. For that Government to be credible, it must be based on the outcome of the 29 March election. To address directly the point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), whatever the final composition of that transitional Government, Robert Mugabe cannot be in control of it.
	Our work, and that of the international community, must be focused on four matters. First, we must support and protect the people in Zimbabwe working for democratic change. Election observers and NGOs witnessed the appalling violence and abuses before the election, and we support the calls for the UN to send at least one human rights envoy to Zimbabwe to investigate those abuses. We also urge the AU and SADC to keep some observers on the ground to continue to monitor, and if possible prevent, further violence.
	Secondly, we support further efforts by the AU, SADC and the UN to find a way forward. Whatever they feel obliged to say in public, most African leaders are now sick and tired of having to apologise for Robert Mugabe's abuses. He is an embarrassment to them. Morgan Tsvangirai has said that he is looking to the AU to play a key role in any "mediation" effort—I put that in inverted commas because it is not mediation between two equivalent parties. Senior members of the AU, particularly South Africa, have a massive interest in, and responsibility for, bringing Mugabe and ZANU-PF to the negotiating table and securing a democratic resolution to the crisis. The Prime Minister will discuss that with President Mbeki at the G8 meeting later this week.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Philip Hollobone: rose—

David Miliband: I promised the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) that he could come in, so I do not think that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) should jump the queue.

Philip Hollobone: The Foreign Secretary rightly paints a grim economic picture of Zimbabwe. Is the country in a state of total economic collapse, with the world's highest rate of inflation and one of the lowest life expectancies? If not, how close is it to complete economic collapse?

David Miliband: I think that any of us would say that 100 per cent. inflation was pretty close to economic collapse, 1,000 per cent. inflation was a pretty advanced state of collapse and 1 million per cent. inflation was an unimaginable level of collapse. Zimbabwe is a country with between 4 million and 8 million per cent. inflation. I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who is in his place, is a keen historian, and those figures make Weimar look like a prudent regime in its economic management. Zimbabwe is an advanced state of chaos, which is causing real hurt and harm to the people of Zimbabwe, who in many cases are surviving on the back of remittances that are being sent to them.
	Thirdly, through the UN and the EU and bilaterally, we must step up the pressure on Mugabe and his cohorts, including through targeted sanctions. In our view, those sanctions must be focused on punishing those within, or associated with, the regime, and if at all possible not on hurting ordinary Zimbabweans. Building on the statement by the UN Security Council on 23 June, we will continue to push for a UN Security Council resolution calling for further sanctions, including an arms embargo, a travel ban and an assets freeze on key regime figures, as well as a strong role for the UN in a substantive political dialogue. A draft resolution is now circulating and I can confirm that it is strong and clear. I hope that there will be a vote on it early next week.
	Within the EU, at our meeting later this month, Foreign Ministers will decide how to widen and deepen existing EU-targeted measures. We will push for an extension of the EU assets freeze to cover further individuals whose actions are contrary to a political settlement. We will also push for an extension of targeted measures to include farms and businesses owned by those individuals already the subject of targeted sanctions. We will support measures that prevent regime members from attending international events within the EU.
	It is important to be honest about the fact that we need to strike a delicate balance. We have no evidence of breaches of the current sanctions regime by British or other businesses. I reckon that it is a relatively easy choice to try to prevent direct succour and support from being given to members of the regime. It is an easy choice to try to keep employment and sustenance being provided to the people of Zimbabwe. But where both the regime and the people are benefiting from economic engagement, difficult choices must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Ian Paisley: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind the serious attacks on church buildings, leaders and elders? A friend of mine who was a pastor there was murdered during this time. Can any influence be brought to bear to safeguard those people who are being attacked because of their religious principles under a cloak of other reasons?

David Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. If he has any particular cases to raise, I would be keen to ensure that my office follows them up and deals with them as best we can. He makes a general point about abuse that is sometimes targeted and sometimes anarchic and random. We want to try to do everything that we can in all such cases.

Mark Lazarowicz: My right hon. Friend mentioned the work being done at European level. Can he say a bit more about our efforts to ensure that all our European partners put as much pressure as possible on Zimbabwe and assist our work with the AU and other organisations?

David Miliband: I can confirm that our renewed friendship with the French Government is leading to an entente formidable on this issue. The French Government are driving the issue forward as part of their presidency of the EU, and we are feeding in all our ideas, as are other Governments. I hope that the Foreign Ministers' meeting on 22 July will be able to take the issue forward.
	The third set of elements that is important includes sanctions and other measures against the regime. In respect of bilateral action, Robert Mugabe no longer holds a knighthood in this country and the bilateral cricket tour scheduled for 2009 has rightly been cancelled because of the clear links between the Zimbabwean cricket authorities and the Mugabe regime. With regard to the Twenty20 world cup due to be held in this country next year, we have asked the England and Wales Cricket Board to request the International Cricket Council to annul Zimbabwe's inclusion. The meeting taking place in Dubai has not yet concluded, but I very much hope that it will reach the clear conclusion that Zimbabwe should not be allowed to participate in the event, given the circumstances.
	We will also consider whether action can be taken to exclude regime members or their associates from the UK and to freeze their assets.

Hugo Swire: What discussions are ongoing with overseas Governments, especially Switzerland and the like, about the sequestration of assets belonging to Mugabe and his regime?

David Miliband: This is critically dependent on the UN resolution and its strength. If we can get a strong UN resolution, we will be in a good position to try to clamp down on the assets of the regime, whether in Switzerland or elsewhere.

Henry Bellingham: We do need a powerful UN resolution, because the Foreign Secretary will recall that the Smith regime was subject to such a resolution and the only countries to which members of that regime could travel were Paraguay, Taiwan and South Africa. Most people find it utterly galling that Mugabe and his henchmen are still allowed to travel around the world under UN auspices, especially to the recent AU conference in Egypt.

David Miliband: I think that we have covered the importance of isolating the regime as far as possible.
	The fourth point is the vital need to ensure that despite the focus on the politics we do not lose sight of the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. We expect 5.1 million Zimbabwean people to be dependent on aid by the end of the year. Unless Mugabe lifts his ban on NGOs delivering aid and removes all obstacles to co-operation so that people can access food and basic medicines again, the situation will obviously get much worse. The UK remains committed to the people of Zimbabwe, as we are the second largest bilateral donor, giving some £45 million in 2001 and more than £200 million since 2000.
	The Prime Minister has already publicly declared our willingness to play a major role in supporting the international rescue and recovery package for Zimbabwe when the time is right. That will cost at least $1 billion a year for the next five years—more than three times current aid levels. That is the bill for Mugabe's inhumanity.
	Around the world, Governments and people are asking themselves how they can shift the position of a Zimbabwean Government who have proved deaf to the views of their people and to the international community. We owe it to the people of Zimbabwe to support and protect the forces of democracy inside the country, to step up our mediation efforts to ensure a peaceful and democratic resolution to this crisis, and to back this with targeted pressure and sanctions on the regime. This is a responsibility for the whole of the international community, but the greatest responsibility will be borne—certainly for political isolation—by African countries, especially Zimbabwe's neighbours.
	The Movement for Democratic Change yesterday warned that
	"The crisis in Zimbabwe requires urgent action. The violence, intimidation, hunger and suffering must be addressed as soon as possible. Zimbabweans cannot afford any more confusion or delays. Zimbabweans can no longer afford to listen to words that are not reinforced by action."
	I am sure that the whole House will join with me in echoing those words.

William Hague: There will be much common ground on many of the matters that the Foreign Secretary has mentioned, not least the thoughts and good wishes that he extended to the President of Zambia. We are united in this House in our horror that over the last decade the world has witnessed the Mugabe regime's relentless abuse of the Zimbabwean people and the systematic destruction of their country.
	The humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe is probably the worst anywhere in the world outside a war zone. One in four Zimbabweans have become refugees, and those who remain are at the mercy of a regime that beats, kills and tortures with impunity. Allowing Mugabe to cling to power is to consign the people of Zimbabwe to years, possibly, of further depredation and hopelessness. That is why the international community's response to the situation matters so much and why today's all-too-short debate is so important.
	There will be general agreement in the House about much of the response, although I wish to press the Foreign Secretary on some points. I expect that we all agree that the European Union should widen its sanctions, as he mentioned; that it was right to issue a presidential statement to the UN and to seek a strong Security Council resolution now; and that African countries should join in not recognising the legitimacy of the Mugabe Government, although regrettably some have.
	The Minister with responsibility for Africa, Lord Malloch-Brown, has spoken of a knot tightening around the regime, and stated unequivocally that Mugabe cannot be a part of any Zimbabwean Government. We very much support such sentiments. The issue now is how that can be achieved. The Foreign Secretary spoke about the AU summit in terms with which I agree. It was very good that countries such as Botswana called for the suspension of Zimbabwe from African regional bodies, because its participation would
	"give unqualified legitimacy to a process that cannot be considered legitimate".
	It is disappointing, however, that the summit resolution was less critical of Zimbabwe than we would have wished. It seems clear that a credible mediation—to use that word again—requires a new or additional mediator, such as Kofi Annan or the Nigerian President, as Morgan Tsvangirai has said.
	The Foreign Secretary said that he would travel shortly to South Africa. I hope that he will take that opportunity to deliver a united message from this country that, following the violence and the sham elections, the regime of Mugabe cannot be recognised as legitimate. I hope that he will be able to go a little further and say that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, we regard Morgan Tsvangirai as the democratically elected leader of Zimbabwe subject, of course, to the subsequent decisions of the Zimbabwean people when at long last they have the freedom to make their own choices in the future.

Henry Bellingham: On the subject of a transitional Government, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important for that to be followed by a free, fair and properly monitored election very soon afterwards?

William Hague: Of course, the whole House and the whole civilised world hopes that that will happen, and that the people of Zimbabwe will be able then to express their views in an election that meets international standards. We cannot lay down what will be agreed in the future, but in my view that certainly ought to be part of it.
	The same message should be reflected in the conclusions of the G8 summit next week, at which South Africa, of course, will be present. That will be an opportunity not to bully South Africa but to challenge its Government to live up to their moral regional responsibilities. It will be an opportunity to leave South Africa and the South African Government in no doubt that there is huge disappointment in this country about the stance that they have taken.

Denis MacShane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the African National Congress, at this week's conference of the Socialist International, sought to block the MDC from affiliating to the Socialist International? Sadly, the ANC is not seen internationally to be siding with the MDC and the G8 meeting is very important to maximise the pressure on South Africa.

William Hague: That is a good point, and I agree with it very much. Of course, the ANC has separated itself from ZANU-PF to some extent in its statements. Many of us have had conversations with Mr. Zuma about all this and have urged a stronger line from South Africa in the future. I met him last month—

David Miliband: At the Socialist International meeting?

William Hague: Not at the Socialist International, but we meet in other forums. We all have to use all the relationships that we have with South Africa to urge a stronger line. South Africa is a country under huge pressure from the number of Zimbabwean refugees who are entering, and that is having a destabilising effect. That must be placing a strain on the infrastructure of a country that is planning, among other things, to host the 2010 World cup.
	I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has raised today the supply of food in Zimbabwe, which he said would be needed by 5.1 million people by the end of the year. Given that aid agencies have been prevented from operating, it is vital that humanitarian assistance reaches those who most need it. We urge the Foreign Secretary to raise that matter with South African Ministers and his other African counterparts.
	I was pleased, too, that he talked about the international assistance that would be provided after Mugabe, whenever the people of Zimbabwe have the freedom to choose their own Government. It ought to be possible to lay out that programme of assistance in greater detail than has so far been done by our Government and other Governments of the world. A clear programme of assistance should backed by a donor conference; a contact group should provide diplomatic support and engage with regional countries; and support should be provided for the reform of the police and security sector in Zimbabwe as well as for the orderly return of refugees. In the event of a major deterioration in security post-Mugabe, an international observer mission or over-the-horizon humanitarian force under the auspices of the African Union and backed by the major powers could be ready. All that could be set out in more detail and would give great hope to the people of Zimbabwe in this desperate situation.

John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that providing carrots of the kind that he has just rightly described needs to be accompanied by the threat of the use of the stick? To put it bluntly, the longer this nonsense goes on and the more fatalities under the mass-murderer Mugabe there are, the greater the likelihood that he and others will be referred to the International Criminal Court.

William Hague: My hon. Friend brings me right on to the point that I was about to make. The carrots can be made somewhat clearer, but of course the stick needs to be made bigger. We all welcome the initiative to introduce a draft resolution in the Security Council that places an arms embargo on Zimbabwe and imposes a travel ban and asset freeze on regime officials. We certainly support the call for a UN human rights commission and a special envoy to Zimbabwe. Those are steps that the Security Council ought to be able to agree.
	If that criminal Government manage to cling to power and the situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate, millions of people across the world will wonder why the UN did not do more. In our view, if the UN was living up to its responsibilities—particularly the responsibility to protect, which all nations signed up to in recent years—it would agree all the measures that I have outlined and the referral of the Mugabe regime to the ICC. Clearly, it is difficult to achieve that in the UN Security Council, given the balance of opinion. However, the Minister responsible for Africa has said that he anticipates human rights action against the regime that, in his words,
	"will quickly make it impossible for them to travel anywhere for fear of arrest from human rights warrants put up by different judges".
	We would welcome clarification from the Government about what the Minister responsible for Africa was referring to. We strongly support such action, but it is not clear how it will be put into effect.
	The Foreign Secretary said that he expected European sanctions on Zimbabwe to be enhanced at the next meeting of EU Foreign Ministers. Of course, we support that too. Perhaps the Government will be able to tell us, if they have the chance to respond to the debate or in the future, how many family members or relatives of regime members reside in Britain or attend British universities.
	We hope that it will be made clear that the EU should not invite Mugabe to any further summits of any kind. I asked the Foreign Secretary about that a couple of weeks ago and he said that no such summit was in prospect, which is in itself welcome. It should be possible to make a stronger statement than that if the EU means business on those matters.
	There is wide agreement that businesses should be responsible in their approach to investment in Zimbabwe. Some people have called for a trade embargo, and I do not believe that that or anything else should be ruled out for the future. In the absence of any prospect of Security Council agreement, that proposal would obviously have some severe deficiencies. However, there might be a need for greater clarity in the guidance to businesses on how to approach matters.
	We welcome the announcements by Tesco and the German company that has printed banknotes for the regime that they have withdrawn their business from Zimbabwe. There appears to be some confusion, however. One businessman was quoted in the newspapers this week as having said:
	"The politicians appear to be saying one thing and the Foreign Office another."
	We ought to be able to set out that those not engaged in the country should not seek to become engaged there and that those countries with assets and employees in Zimbabwe should make no new investments and do nothing that provides hard currency to members of the regime, feeds its corruption or prolongs the tenure of a Government who have lost all legitimacy.
	I must ask the Government about a point that might seem detailed but is symbolically important. It is about Northern Rock, now a state-owned bank in the UK. Its Guernsey subsidiary is specifically asking for deposits from three African countries, of which Zimbabwe is one. Treasury Ministers who have been asked about it have not yet been able definitively to state that Northern Rock complies with the EU financial sanctions regime. Given that the bank is owned by the British taxpayer, Ministers should be able to state that. An explanation of why that subsidiary is asking for deposits from Zimbabwe would be welcome.
	It is a tragedy that, after all the high hopes of the 1980s and the introduction of democracy, the people of Zimbabwe have suffered such appalling misrule. There is now a choice, which, as the Foreign Secretary has said, is largely before the African nations, about the way in which the regime will come to an end. It will either be a slow, agonising end with inflation reaching infinity, life expectancy falling even lower and food becoming even scarcer as Mugabe and those around him try to eke out their power, or it can be a quicker end that allows the country and its people to recover more quickly in a democratic and open society. Now is the time for all nations to send the unequivocal message to the regime in Harare and the people of Zimbabwe that there is a future for the country after Mugabe, and to send the message to the African continent that its Governments cannot sit on their hands and avoid taking sides in a crisis that blights the lives of millions.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Hugh Bayley: I begin by reminding myself and the House that Morgan Tsvangirai clearly won the March election. The so-called run-off election on Friday was a sham and a betrayal of the Zimbabwean people. Marwick Khumalo, the leader of the Pan-African Parliament's election observer mission, said that it was
	"an electoral campaign marred by high levels of intimidation, violence, displacement of people, abductions, and loss of life".
	He went on to say that it was
	"difficult to dismiss claims of state-sponsored violence".
	The mission concluded that the elections were not free, fair or credible, and called for new elections.
	Members of Parliament in Africa have found their voice, and we in this Parliament should congratulate and stand by them. There is a lot of anger and frustration, but anger and frustration will not change things. We need to ask what the UK can do to change the situation in Zimbabwe. First, we need to increase humanitarian aid. As the Foreign Secretary said, we are the second largest bilateral donor, and provided £45 million in aid last year. There are 300,000 people receiving food aid, but the Department for International Development expects that figure to rise to more than 4 million come the hungry season in January. We and other donors must step up to the mark and increase our aid.

Denis MacShane: The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), complained about hard currency going into Zimbabwe. Is it not a dilemma that our hard currency, from DFID and other aid donors, is propping things up there? I do not ask my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) to condemn that aid, but we are in a dilemma that we are not facing honestly.

Hugh Bayley: It is necessary for us to channel our aid money through UN agencies, and to circumvent the Zimbabwean Government, but what my right hon. Friend says is right. When foreign currency is exchanged in Zimbabwe, their Government take a cut, and some 20 or 25 per cent. ends up in Government coffers. We need to face that dilemma in relation to economic sanctions, but I will say more about that later.
	The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that 1.5 million people in Zimbabwe have been directly affected by the Zimbabwean Government's suspension of the activities of non-governmental organisations. That activity was suspended because the Government falsely claimed that the NGOs were taking sides in the election. The election has passed, and there can be no possible argument for the continued suspension of the activities of NGOs. We should be pressing the Government of Zimbabwe, and pressing our friends in Africa to press that Government, to enable those humanitarian organisations to get back to doing their work.
	Our Government are the biggest donor to the replenishment of the World Bank's International Development Association, so we should take a lead in the construction of an international economic rescue package for Zimbabwe. That package should be conditional on the re-establishment of an accountable Government in Zimbabwe. That would give the Zimbabwean players real encouragement to re-establish legitimate Government, so that the disastrous economic situation in Zimbabwe can be addressed.
	Members of this House need to take account of our own history. Mugabe is a tyrant, but where did he learn his tactics? He spent the first 50 years of his life growing up under white minority rule. When Cecil Rhodes's pioneers moved into Mashonaland in 1890, they simply seized the land. The Matabele lands were taken by the British South Africa Company because their leader, Lobengula, was double-crossed.

Julian Lewis: I find this history lesson fascinating, but before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away in an anti-colonialist reverie, or even rant, may I remind him that Robert Mugabe was a Marxist dictator, and that it is no coincidence that a communist country, China, is his biggest supporter to this day?

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is right that during the liberation struggle, ZANU, as it was then, received a lot of aid and support from China. I certainly would not make the case that Britain's colonial history is solely responsible for the situation. I make these points because we in the House need to be aware of why people in Africa sometimes regard our statements on Zimbabwe as prejudiced, and as being based on double standards. That is why it is so important for Africa to rise to the challenge of solving the problem itself.
	If we are looking for leadership, we and others in Africa should look first to the Zimbabwean Parliament. Parliaments are meant to hold the Executive to account, and a majority of the Members of Parliament elected on 29 March were Opposition MPs. There were 99 from the Tsvangirai faction of the Movement for Democratic Change, nine from Mutambara's MDC, and 97 from ZANU-PF. We should clearly say that the Zimbabwean Parliament should be convened, and that the contesting of the election results, which ZANU-PF is still pursuing, should not prevent the Parliament from being convened. We should provide finance and support for the Parliament, perhaps through the Pan-African Parliament, to enable it to meet and to develop its capacity to hold the Government to account.
	The UK's smart sanctions have not been smart enough. It is time for Europe to look seriously at wider economic sanctions. We certainly need to consult those whom we can consult in Zimbabwe—the MDC, NGOs and Members of Parliament—about how the sanctions packet should be fashioned, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, whenever there is any business transaction in Zimbabwe, the Mugabe regime takes its cut. If the UK denounces the ZANU-PF junta but permits Anglo American, Rio Tinto, Shell or Tesco to invest or trade in Zimbabwe, and to take profit out, many will again accuse us of double standards.
	During the 1970s and '80s, I was a member of the executive of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, and I stood outside Rhodesia House demanding political change. The illegal Smith regime had no legitimacy, and the Mugabe junta has no legitimacy. Thirty years ago, I demanded the right of the Zimbabwean people to be freed from tyranny and to control their own political destiny through free and fair elections, and I do the same today. Our Government, and Governments in Africa who care about the future of Zimbabwe, must not recognise the elections, and must insist that new, free and fair elections be held.

Edward Davey: The Foreign Secretary was right to say that there was cross-party support on almost all the issues to do with Zimbabwe, and I agree with many of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), including on the need to put more pressure on South Africa, and on the need to support those African nations that are speaking out, such as Botswana; that clearly is the route forward. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary recommended that Her Majesty take up our proposal to withdraw Mugabe's knighthood. I want to use the small amount of time that I have to make three constructive suggestions to the Government. The first has to do with how we can help Zimbabweans living in this country prepare for their future role in rebuilding Zimbabwe. The second is to propose that the Government push for a stronger legal threat on Mugabe through the UN, and the third involves some comments about sanctions.
	The key development objective for a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe must be to help as many Zimbabweans living in this country prepare for their task of rebuilding their country, through education, training and work experience. The Government have taken some action in that respect, but I have spoken to representatives of the Movement for Democratic Change and of many of the organisations that work with Zimbabweans living in this country, and they are quietly critical of the Government for not doing much more. Their criticisms come down to two things—that huge uncertainties remain for failed asylum seekers, and that the thousands of Zimbabweans still waiting for their original asylum cases to be heard are unable to work. Those people have been left virtually destitute, with their skills and talents untapped by this country and withering away when it comes to any future use in Zimbabwe.
	On failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers, the Court of Appeal yesterday decided to adjourn its hearing in the so-called "HS" case. That means that there should be no removals of such people for at least a few more months, but what about the longer term? We have heard some warm words from some Foreign Office Ministers, most recently on Monday in the other place, when Lord Bach said:
	"we have no current plans to enforce returns to Zimbabwe and will not do so until the current political situation is resolved."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2008; Vol. 703, c. 3.]
	Yet colleagues will readily see that even that statement has a degree of uncertainty and ambiguity about it, even before one adds the ambiguity that is the hallmark of the Home Office's position on this matter.
	The policy issue involved is totally in the Government's control. No quiet diplomacy or negotiation with any other country is needed; Ministers could take a decision and act. Why cannot all Zimbabwean failed asylum seekers be given special discretionary leave to remain lasting, say, for two years from today? That would give them the certainty that they need to get their lives together so that they can prepare for their eventual return to Zimbabwe. Ministers could also allow those people the right to work, and give the same right to work to the thousand of Zimbabweans who have been waiting for their asylum cases to be heard. Those people are seeking sanctuary in this country from the evil of Mugabe, but why do we allow them to suffer here? They have to rely on charity hand-outs and Red Cross parcels, but why can we not allow them the dignity of work?
	On Monday in the other place, Lord Bach repeated the pledge that his colleague Lord Malloch-Brown had made the previous week. Lord Malloch-Brown had said that the Government were
	"looking at the support that we may need to give Zimbabweans in this country, particularly at the ban on refugees taking up work".—[ Official Report, 23 June 2008; vol. 702, col. 1258.]
	I hope that the Government will say more about that. Technically, Lord Malloch-Brown was wrong. Refugees have the right to work here, but asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers do not. I am pleased that the Government are looking at the matter, but we need action and some details now.

Simon Hughes: I endorse enthusiastically what my hon. Friend is saying, and commend his request to the Government. Those of us who represent many people from Zimbabwe know that they want to be able to work now so that they can live and work in Zimbabwe later. Does my hon. Friend agree with the plea made to the Government by the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) that we work to make sure that those elected to Zimbabwe's Parliament can take up their places? In that way, and by working with the AU, the Southern African Development Community and others, we can be sure that a Parliament with an Opposition majority is in place to hold the Government to account. That is a hugely important and immediate requirement.

Edward Davey: I agree totally with my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley).
	My second point, about the UN and the International Criminal Court, has been touched on by Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members in recent days. However, the point that I want to make is more precise and immediate, and I believe that it will help focus the minds of those in the inner circle of ZANU-PF. The UN should resolve that, if Robert Mugabe does not leave office within six months, the jurisdiction of the ICC will apply in Zimbabwe.
	Currently, Zimbabwe is not a signatory to the ICC, and that puts Mugabe and his henchmen outside the reach of international police and prosecutors. However, the UN Security Council can, by a resolution, bring any country within the locus of the ICC. That would mean that Mugabe and any other named individuals—wherever they went in the world and at any time until their dying day—could face lawful arrest, and subsequent prosecution in the Hague. That would surely focus the minds of the ZANU-PF inner circle.
	Ministers should mount a diplomatic offensive to that end in the UN. I accept that it would be difficult, but trying to win international support for that powerful legal threat—the ultimate eviction notice—would surely be worth the effort.
	My final point has to do with the vexed question of sanctions. There has inevitably been a debate over smart or targeted sanctions as opposed to dumb or blanket sanctions. Should we toughen the current targeted regime—for example, by including the families of the ZANU-PF leadership—or should we consider more intermediate measures, such as a UN arms embargo, or specific bans on things like financial remittances, electricity and petrol? Wider measures could include commercial disinvestment to a full-scale economic and trade embargo.
	There are questions about the efficacy of such sanctions and who would suffer, but we need to do far more than we have done so far. It is the ordinary Zimbabweans who are suffering tremendously from malnutrition, unemployment and inflation. Many of the tougher sanctions that are available would not hurt them, but they would hurt the elite and those in Mugabe's Government.

Kate Hoey: I very much welcome the cross-party nature of this debate, and especially the work done by the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary. However, I also want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his personal commitment to this matter and the huge amount of time and effort that he has devoted to it over the past few months. There has been some progress at the UN recently, and I honestly believe that that has resulted from the extra efforts that he has made, and from the work that has gone on generally in this House.
	I am pleased that some of the things for which various hon. Members have called for some time have been accepted by the Government. For example, sanctions are to be tightened, and the problems with the Zimbabwe cricket tour have been cleared up. We called for that a year ago, but we were told that sport and politics do not mix. I hope that no one is dreaming of giving a visa to any Zimbabwean cricketer even if the International Cricket Council were to say that the team could carry on in Twenty20 cricket.
	I do not want to go into too much detail, but does the international community really want Mugabe to attend the Beijing Olympic games? Should a Zimbabwean team be able to compete? If we can get South Africa out of the Olympics, we should be able to do the same for Zimbabwe.
	I want to talk about humanitarian protection. What is the UN's role in that? What has it said that it can do, and how little does it actually do? It utters grand-sounding words and resolutions, but how can we take that seriously if there are no mechanisms that allow it to intervene and give the real help needed to save people from the violent frenzy of Zimbabwe's illegal Government? We should not even talk about President Mugabe—he is not a president, and he has not been legally elected. The Zimbabwean Government are an illegal, pariah Government.
	The UN has a special adviser on the prevention of genocide. That sounds very laudable, but what has he done to prevent the slide towards genocide in Zimbabwe? It is not too extreme to use the word "genocide", as some extremely dreadful things are happening in that country. Those events are not seen by cameras, and they happen out of the sight of the many brave reporters and journalists who have managed to get into the country. Has the adviser given any assessment to the UN of the genocide that is taking place in Zimbabwe?
	I could spend a lot of time making critical comments about the AU, but we do not have that time. I welcome the fact that some African leaders have finally gone public with the criticism of Mugabe that they had hitherto made quietly behind the scenes. The AU monitors said that the first election was completely free and fair, but we knew that some terrible things were going on. They condemned the second round of elections, so how come Mugabe was allowed even to think of being able to attend the summit in Egypt? Zimbabwe must be suspended from the AU until an end is put to Mugabe's Government and a new Government put in their place. The AU must be pushed by us. It has no credibility while it allows Zimbabwe to remain a member.

Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Lady is making an important point, but does she agree that it is important for members of the African Union to understand that if the international community is committed to massive transfers of aid and development funding to Africa, Africa must solve the political and economic problems at its heart? Otherwise, it will be very difficult to maintain public support for that transfer of funds.

Kate Hoey: Absolutely; I shall come on to that issue if I have time.
	What is the point of negotiation and mediation if they are simply used as a tactic to prolong Mugabe's rule and allow him to wear down the MDC by intimidation and violence? ZANU-PF is working on the basis that, if it can string out the mediation process for long enough, there will not be any coherent opposition left to confront. There is a systematic taking-out of duly elected Members of Parliament at this very moment. They continue to be abducted and beaten up and to disappear. Although there may be an MDC parliamentary majority, Members of Parliament who are kept in prison or in police cells for more than 21 days can be removed from their seats. The idea is that, by the end of the process, Mugabe will get his parliamentary majority by killing and torturing the Members who already sit in Parliament.

Sally Keeble: Does my hon. Friend agree that, unless clear standards are set for the proper governance for Zimbabwe, there is a real risk that mediation and compromise will simply result in a fudge that allows the present atrocities to continue, albeit under a slightly different banner?

Kate Hoey: Any fudge that involves Mugabe or any of his closest Government allies staying in power must be opposed.

John Bercow: If talks and sanctions fail, surely there is a logical corollary of that state of affairs, in that the only way to remove a genocidal regime is by virtue of a military deployment with an obligation to enforce peace.

Kate Hoey: We may have to consider a peacekeeping force, but I am very keen to ensure that we do what the MDC—the official Government, as far as I am concerned—asks for, rather than sit around here and decide what is best.
	If this is an African problem, as we are told it is, and it needs an African solution, the AU and SADC must call for an end to the intimidation of African lawyers when carrying out their professional duties. The draft communiqués that emerge from the AU still manage to parrot ZANU-PF's version of events.
	I cannot even begin to say what I think of the South African President. I said last week in Parliament that we have been far too nice for far too long to President Mbeki, and I am glad that we are beginning to think that it is time to stop. When he and many others rallied people in this country on the issues of apartheid, we were not told that we should not get involved because we were ex-colonialists, or that we should not struggle to rid South Africa of oppression. Many South Africans came to the UK to seek refuge from terror; today, many Zimbabweans are coming here, and we need to give them the same support that we gave to the African National Congress exiles all those years ago.
	I want to mention some people who have been to this Parliament, who have been involved with all of us and who are still being held in prison. Tendai Biti is of course now out of prison, but he was released not because of Mbeki's protestations, but because of the very brave lawyers who continue in that country to ensure that, occasionally, judges rule on some elements of law and order. I want to mention also some of the women from Women of Zimbabwe Arise, whom I met many years ago on my first visit, and indeed, on my second and third visits. Those women, who were working throughout Zimbabwe, were not partisan and did not even think of themselves as politicised; they wanted their lives and those of the people in their communities to get better. Many were widows, and they knew that their children would soon be orphans, but they looked out for each other and vowed to care for each other when they were no longer able to look after themselves. That is what human rights should mean in practice, and that is what the responsibility to protect means at grass-roots level.
	Today, many of those women are still in prison. People such as Jenni Williams and Magadonga Mahlangu were arrested on 28 May. They are still being held in custody in harsh and sub-human conditions, and they are subject to torture and other degrading treatment. Those women were detained purely because they attempted to exercise their rights to freedom of association and assembly.
	In the trade union movement, Lovemore Matombo, president of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions and one of the most impressive men I have ever met, is fighting valiantly against all the odds to uphold the rights of workers in Zimbabwe. He has been imprisoned many times—under Ian Smith as well as under Mugabe—and is now on trial for inciting rebellion as a result of a speech that he made on May day. I welcome the role of the trade unions in trying to confront Mugabe, and I welcome also the changed and very strong views of the Congress of South African Trade Unions. If only the South African President would listen to them.
	The UK Prime Minister recently challenged the G8 members to live up to their promises at Gleneagles to increase development aid, but so far they have not kept them. I hope also that he will issue a strong challenge to Thabo Mbeki and the AU representatives to live up to their promises. It is quite amazing that we continue to think about pouring in millions of pounds of aid. I am not necessarily talking about Zimbabwe, but there are real problems with the way in which aid is used there. We have to be very careful, because when I was in Zimbabwe, and more recently, many people said to me, "We're suffering anyway. Is it not better to get the suffering over as quickly as possible, rather than dragging things out and keeping Mugabe in power by paying to feed the people who Mugabe is trying to kill and oppress?" It is us—my constituents—who are paying. We have to say to the rest of the African Union, "We are aiding you, we are giving you things, we are helping you. You cannot expect continually to have it both ways—to take what we give and then condemn us for interfering in Africa."
	It is time for Governments throughout the world to recognise that we have been too slow to get involved in Zimbabwe. If we do not now undertake proper international involvement, get in there and make Mugabe go, there will be a genocide unlike anything we have seen—certainly not since Rwanda.

Nicholas Winterton: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). As she knows, I have taken an interest in Zimbabwe ever since I entered the House, and the country and its people are very close to my heart.
	Three months on from 29 March, when the presidential and parliamentary election results that were posted at polling stations seemed to bring change within the grasp of the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe, their lives have become worse. With every day that passes, there are examples of brutality, killings, beatings and imprisonment. You name it, they have experienced it. It is important to remember that Zimbabwe has a democratically elected Parliament, as the hon. Lady said. While discussions over transitional arrangements continue among South African Development Community and African Union leaders, we must bear in mind the Zimbabwean people's democratic will, which was expressed in the mandate given to the members of the House of Assembly on 29 March. The voices of those parliamentarians must be listened to as an expression of the sovereign will of the people of Zimbabwe.
	We in this House want democracy in Zimbabwe, not a stitch-up engineered from outside to protect the interests of ZANU-PF, its elite and its associates. Mugabe is reported to be planning to undermine the MDC majority in Parliament by bringing trumped-up charges against Movement for Democratic Change MPs. It is also said that he will use imprisonment and abduction to make them forfeit their seats, because as the hon. Lady said, under Zimbabwean law, MPs who do not attend Parliament for 21 consecutive days lose their seats.
	Understandably, I advise the House, many newly elected MDC MPs are already in hiding and at least 10 have been arrested on spurious charges. I hope that this House will do all it can to alert parliamentarians throughout the world to the threats faced by those Zimbabweans who have put their lives on the line by offering themselves up for election.

Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nicholas Winterton: No, I shall not give way. Time in the debate is limited and others want to speak.
	Measures which time and again were dismissed as unacceptable and unhelpful are now being adopted as it becomes clear that Mugabe and his ZANU-PF thugs will not respond to conventional pressure of any sort—political or diplomatic. Strong and unequivocal action, which isolates his regime and cuts off the sources of payment, patronage, privilege, travel, fuel and energy, is needed to reduce the benefits that he receives and which fuel the machinery of oppression. It is heartening to see the growing international mood towards serious engagement to bring an end to Mugabe's madness and the tragedy of Zimbabwe. I pay tribute to the voices of two archbishops—John Sentamu and Desmond Tutu. Their passion for the welfare of the people of Zimbabwe stands in stark contrast to the silence and inaction of so many political leaders in Africa.
	The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who chairs the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, has already spoken. I say with regret that, sadly, the Commonwealth has failed to live up to the challenge that Mugabe presented when he withdrew Zimbabwe from membership. Many of us feel huge good will towards the Commonwealth and feel that it can still play a valuable role in international affairs. It is not too late for the Commonwealth to fulfil its potential and protect the citizens of Zimbabwe, who should surely still be considered to be members of the Commonwealth. They have an even greater need for support since Mugabe petulantly abducted them rather than fulfil his obligations to uphold democracy and decent behaviour.
	I should like to refer briefly to the G8, which meets in a matter of hours. It should not only issue a stinging rebuke to Mugabe, but ask pertinent, searching questions of President Mbeki of South Africa and perhaps deliver to him a slightly less stinging rebuke. He has failed miserably to live up to his side of the bargain with the G8. The House may not know this, but the whole basis on which he attends the annual G8 summits as an observer is the understanding that he will take a lead in Africa on upholding good governance and respect for human rights. He has failed to do that.
	This weekend, Morgan Tsvangirai told a South African newspaper:
	"I have received information that President Mbeki is lobbying at the African Union to have that position taken"—
	that is, the position that Mugabe is president. He went on:
	"For President Mbeki to promote Mugabe in these circumstances flies against the grain of international opinion, disregards the feelings of Zimbabweans and undermines again his credibility in the mediation effort."
	We must resist the voices of those who tell us that we have no right to involve ourselves with what they claim is a purely African matter. That surely overlooks the massive financial contribution that we in this country make towards the humanitarian effort in Zimbabwe and in other SADC countries. I say sincerely to the Foreign Secretary that SADC leaders and the African Union must be reminded that our continuing commitment to the development of all the countries in the region makes it incumbent on them to join us as partners in protecting the development that we are promoting. A failure to confront Mugabe's wanton destruction of Zimbabwe is hostile to any genuine commitment to ongoing development in the area.
	Much help will be needed in establishing the rule of law again in Zimbabwe. The House will know that its traditions of professionalism in the armed services and the police were drawn largely from our own tradition. Similarly, the links between the education systems, legal professions and judiciaries in Zimbabwe and this country are strong. I hope that we will do much to nurture a revival of those professions. The bonds between the people of the country and the United Kingdom are strong. They have remained strong despite the viciousness of Mugabe's actions and his vitriol. I look forward to visiting Zimbabwe again one day soon and celebrating rebirth, stability, peace and economic progress in that wonderful country.

Andrew MacKay: It gives me particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), both of whom, from different sides of the House, have relentlessly and unstintingly raised the plight of Zimbabwe and ordinary Zimbabwean people. We owe them a great debt of gratitude.
	It was absolutely right for the Foreign Secretary to open by saying that the House will and must show total unity today. There have been moments of slight disagreement in the past, because we were all pushing for action at a different pace. I readily acknowledge that the Government had a difficult hand to play. However, I suggest to the Foreign Secretary that now that last week's sham election is over, the pace has changed completely. People can no longer say, "Oh well, the ex-colonial power should not look as if it is interfering in Zimbabwe. It is counter-productive to speak out, as it might give succour to Mugabe." I put it to the Foreign Secretary that a brief topical debate such as this is inadequate, although better than nothing. It is important that there should be a full-scale debate on the Floor of the House. It is also important that the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development return to the Dispatch Box regularly to update us on developments as events unfold.
	We all know what horrors have been happening in Zimbabwe; we do not need to rehearse them again in the short time available. However, I wish to make two specific points, which I have raised before in Westminster Hall debates. The first is about smart sanctions, which, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, have not really worked. There has not been the necessary professionalism and desire to make them work.
	I hope that the Foreign Secretary will soon be able to answer the pertinent question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). Many believe that a significant number of children of members of the Mugabe regime are at private boarding school or university in this country. Every single one should be slung out, because they have absolutely no right to benefit from being in this country. If sharp sanctions are to mean what they say and are not to affect the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, we should go for what I have suggested.

Denis MacShane: rose—

Andrew MacKay: I shall not give way; as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, many others who want to speak have been waiting patiently. Giving way would eat into their time.
	The second issue that I wish to raise is that it is clear that very little progress will be made at the United Nations. Deep down, the Foreign Secretary knows that. The reason is simple: China will veto again and again. Yes, we can play our part within the European Union and the G8, but we all know that the final solution has to be in the hands of Africa. Some progress was made at Sharm el-Sheikh, although the summit was deeply disappointing in many ways. However, more and more African countries are speaking out—Nigeria and Kenya, as well as SADC countries. Progress has also been made at SADC. The role of the President of Zambia has already been mentioned, but Botswana and Tanzania have also been important.
	The real problem, however, is South Africa. South Africa holds the key; it is the economic and political giant of southern Africa. If South Africa were to lead, the rest would fall into place. We have seen the courage of ex-President Mandela in speaking out, we have heard the wise words of Archbishop Tutu, we have seen some movement from Mr. Zuma on behalf of the African National Congress, and we were delighted by the stance of the South African trade union movement in refusing to allow— [ Interruption . ] The Foreign Secretary seems to think that this is funny. I do not think that it is at all funny that trade unionists—dockers—in South Africa rightly did not allow the Chinese ship to dock with its arms and munitions for Zimbabwe. That lead should have come from the South African Government, but it did not—it was taken by trade unionists.
	As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, the real culprit is President Mbeki. He could do more but does nothing whatsoever. Huge pressure must be put on him and huge condemnation must be made of him. It is vital that he is shamed into taking greater action. One can perfectly well understand why Mr. Tsvangirai does not feel that this man can be a mediator. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will assure us that when he visits South Africa he is very plain-speaking with President Mbeki, who is letting down the people of South Africa and affecting the reputation of that democracy.

Hugo Swire: It is a pleasure almost to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who gave an extremely well balanced and thoughtful speech, in stark contrast to some other Labour Members who are always under the shadow of the post-colonial guilt that has led to virtual paralysis in dealing with Zimbabwe over the past decade.
	Last time we had a full debate on Zimbabwe in this Chamber, the Foreign Secretary urged us to be temperate with our language, on the grounds that Mugabe was listening to us. I sincerely hope that Mugabe will get a report of today's proceedings. I welcome the fact that, belatedly, the Foreign Secretary's language has got tougher. It is clear that the African solution that was envisaged as being the answer for so many years is not working. Why? Because while President Mbeki is around, nothing is going to happen. We must rest our hopes on Jacob Zuma and other African leaders who genuinely want to move matters forward.
	There are several things that we can do, and I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will do them. At the forthcoming G8 summit in Japan next week, he should urge all states to refuse to recognise the legitimacy of Mugabe's regime and call on the Southern African Development Community and African Union countries not to recognise the legitimacy of the regime; at the European Union, he should call for wider EU sanctions on Mugabe's regime members; at the United Nations, he should call for a UN commission of inquiry into human rights abuses in China; and he should urge British businesses and individuals not to make any investments that prop up Mugabe's regime. We have addressed many of those issues during the debate.
	At Prime Minister's questions recently, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he would summon the Chinese ambassador and tell her that the eyes of the world were on China in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics, he gave me the brush-off. I urge the Foreign Secretary to use every possible pressure that he can to persuade the Chinese that they must desist immediately from financially shoring up this evil, criminal regime. Without China, we will not get the resolution that we need at the UN, and that needs to be spelled out to China in very bleak terms. It is possible to intervene in Zimbabwe under the UN responsibility to protect, or R2P. Equally, it is possible to refer some of these criminals to the International Criminal Court, but that would also need to be supported by China.
	I support the idea that sanctions should be extended—they have clearly been violated by some members of the Mugabe regime—and, yes, I believe that they should extend to members of the families of those associated with what has been called Mugabe's criminal cartel. It is perhaps worth doing a roll of dishonour of some of the people who I believe have questions to answer in due course: Constantine Chiwenga, the commander of the Zimbabwean army; Augustine Chihuri, the police chief; Perence Shiri, the air force chief; Gideon Gono, the central bank governor; Patrick Chinamasa, laughably called the Justice Minister; George Charamba, Mugabe's spokesman; Emmerson Mnangagwa, the Rural Housing Minister; and Happyton Bonyongwe, chief of the Central Intelligence Organisation. All those people should be aware that this House and other democratic Parliaments around the world have their eyes on them and will want them to be called to account for their deeds, in Mugabe's case going back to the Matabeleland massacres and since.
	I want to ask the Foreign Secretary about our moral obligation in two fields: first, to the people who are still UK citizens or British passport holders in Zimbabwe; and secondly, to pensioners. I refer him to the recent case of Ben and Laura Freeth, who were violently beaten up by Mugabe's henchmen, as were their in-laws, Mike and Angela Campbell. Ben Freeth is the holder of a British passport. He, or his parents-in-law, acquired their land after independence. The Zimbabwean Government were offered the farm but chose not to buy it. It was bought in good faith under the law, yet there have been attempts to run them off it. It is a remarkable testament to them that they are intending to stay and defend what is rightfully theirs. On 16 July, the case is coming up at SADC, and that will be a litmus test on land reform in Zimbabwe. So far, the Zimbabwean Government have repeatedly put it off by saying that they do not have the paperwork. I urge the Foreign Secretary to look into this case and to raise it in Japan, because we need to see that justice can still be done.
	I want to turn briefly to our moral obligation to pensioners. The Overseas Service Pensioners Association has been working on this issue for many years. I urge the Foreign Secretary to listen, because it is quite important and quite complicated. At the time of Lancaster House, it was clear what the British Government would or would not do in terms of their obligation to pensioners. They have responsibility for a huge number of pensioners living in this country and a significant number of pensioners living in Zimbabwe, many of whom have not had their pensions paid for many years. Many of the people who have had their pensions transferred into a local currency are in the same situation as all Zimbabweans.
	I urge the Foreign Secretary to continue as best he can in next week's negotiations in trying to bring this evil regime to a close. In the meantime, now that he has discovered a sense of urgency, I ask him to look urgently at how we can protect UK passport holders in Zimbabwe and protect all those to whom we have a moral obligation in ensuring that they have the decent wage that they are entitled to live off, whether they be in Zimbabwe or in the UK.

Richard Benyon: Casting aside much of what I wanted to say, I want to draw the House's attention to a couple of quick points.
	This week we have had a small success, as Back Benchers sometimes can, in the campaign on Zimbabwe. I do not pretend to believe that early-day motions are anything more than, in effect, parliamentary graffiti. However, following the tabling of EDM 1753 to draw the House's attention to the actions of a company called Giesecke and Devrient, which was printing banknotes for the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, the company has withdrawn from that contract. I do not pretend that that action was a result of the EDM. There has also been pressure from the media and political pressure—I give all credit to the Minister for Africa for his involvement, and to the Government of Germany. This is, to an extent, people power, or shareholder power, and shareholders in other companies can learn from it. If I were a shareholder in Anglo-American, I would be looking seriously at that company's corporate responsibility policy and asking it seriously about investments that it announced last week it is carrying out in Zimbabwe. A company of that size cannot invest in Zimbabwe without dealing with Gideon Gono, at the very least, whom my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) just mentioned. Gideon Gono is Robert Mugabe's personal banker and he is right at the centre of the illegal criminal cartel that has brought so much misery to that country.
	I do not believe that we should let off companies such as Giesecke and Devrient as lightly as we have. We need to look at the other contracts that they have with the British Government, and I have submitted a freedom of information request. Those companies have to be held to account because, year after year, they have been actively conniving with the regime. There is a sense of real frustration among the newer breed of African leaders who have a more enlightened approach to governance in Africa. We in the west have to provide whatever assistance we can, be it overt or covert, to the enlightened leadership of such countries.
	I was particularly pleased to read the words of Raila Odinga, the new Prime Minister of Kenya. His wholehearted condemnation of Mugabe was echoed by brave comments from other Southern African Development Community leaders, such as the leadership in Botswana. We need to work with these people to encourage them; they must be so frustrated with the lumpen rump of Mugabe apologists, led, as was so ably articulated by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), by Thabo Mbeki. There are few words that one can summon up to denounce him further. The sense of disappointment among those who campaigned so hard for change in South Africa, and the sense of revulsion that he has propped up this regime, is almost tangible.
	The hon. Lady made another good point. What about our constituents? Where do they fit into this argument? They fork out substantial amounts of money, through their own taxation, in aid to countries in Africa. It is exactly right to say that if we are involved in Africa in such a way, we have every right to comment on regimes such as Mugabe's. They cannot take with one hand, while saying, "We do not want your comments on or involvement in Africa in any other way."
	The eyes of the world will very much be on China in the coming weeks, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take every opportunity to raise with the Chinese Government the appalling fact that they were prepared, in the first instance, to allow arms to be sent to such a country—as they continue to do to other countries such as Sudan. They then connived with other countries to find an alternative way to do so, after a brave move by elements of the Congress of South African Trade Unions prevented the unloading of an arms shipment. Too often we say that the credibility of the United Nations is at stake, and that can be an overused cliché, but it really will be at stake if the Security Council cannot get its act together and put some robust wording into a resolution dealing with the Government of Zimbabwe.
	In the dying seconds of the time left to me, I would just say the following. I had the privilege of attending a meeting last week that was addressed by a brave journalist called Peter Oborne, who described with moving clarity what he witnessed in hospitals in Bulawayo and Harare just a few weeks ago. The courage of individuals such as Peter Oborne was not matched, unfortunately, by a group of people in the room, including a former high commissioner to Zimbabwe, who spoke as much unutterable rubbish then as he did to me and other Members of this House on the Terrace when he was high commissioner in 2001. Those people do no credit to the argument. London is infested with intellectuals, organisations and institutes full of people who want to fight yesterday's battles on Africa. We must focus on today's problems, which are urgent, real and dangerous to millions of people. I cannot emphasise enough the need for the Foreign Secretary and all his colleagues in Government to focus with brutal clarity on what is happening today, and on what needs to be done to resolve the problems in Zimbabwe. We need to put in hand the means to bring about change and prosperity for that wonderful country.

Denis MacShane: I very much agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), who has just spoken. This is the 21st century, and it is time to hold Zimbabwe to the same criteria and standards as we did South Africa, fascist Germany, fascist Italy and other hideous regimes. Why, therefore, are we unable to take stronger action?

Hugo Swire: China.

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman says "China" from a sedentary position—all well and good. We must put pressure on China. But why, for example, are Virgin Atlantic and British Airways using Harare as a stopover on flights to South Africa? Why are KLM and Lufthansa flying to South Africa through Zimbabwe? Why are we talking about putting more money into Zimbabwe via the Department for International Development? Why are we not looking at the companies that prop up the Mugabe regime, such as Shell and Rio Tinto, and asking their shareholders whether they should not be divesting—rather than complaining, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) did, that this is not a good time to sell their shares?
	What can we do to get the United Nations to focus on its responsibilities? It is unable to discharge its responsibilities. What can we do to make sanctions work? They failed against Serbia during the Balkan crisis, and they failed against Iraq under Saddam Hussein. They are failing against Sudan and they failed against Burma. What do we want from an effective sanctions policy? I hope the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will speak personally to all their opposite numbers at the G8 about the importance of this matter. Reference to the International Criminal Court is important, but the United States has refused to ratify the relevant treaty. What is good for the United States goose will be good for the Zimbabwe gander. We have a new culture of international responsibility, and we need to develop sanctions that can work, not just in Zimbabwe, but in other countries around the world, to guide them towards democracy.
	This is a huge test case, and it is time for the Government to be robust, and time for Britain to cut financial support of any sort for Zimbabwe. It is time for Britain to take a lead, not wait for others to decide what to do.

Gillian Merron: I would like to thank the House for this passionate debate on the current situation in Zimbabwe. In the short period of time I have left, I shall refer to some of the main themes, particularly our support for the people of Zimbabwe. Of course, I and the Foreign Secretary will look at all the points raised during the debate.
	I pay tribute to the work of our UK officials in Zimbabwe. I spoke to our team this morning, who described to me the conditions there, and the work that they continue to do to support some of the poorest in Zimbabwe. The truth is, as we know, that conditions in the country are desperate, as we see a naked battle for power being played out. It is Mugabe's reckless policies that are driving thousands into poverty every week, and let us never forget that it is the responsibility of the Government of Zimbabwe to look after their people. That is not happening.
	Zimbabwe is a country that once enjoyed healthy growth, but has seen its economy shrink by a half in only a decade. It used to enjoy macro-economic stability, and it now endures inflation that is beyond imagination. The net result is that it is a country where more than four out of five live in poverty, and between a quarter and a third of the population have fled. By the end of this year, I regret to say that up to 5 million men, women and children could be facing severe hunger and malnutrition.
	Despite constant threats and recriminations from Mugabe and his cronies, we continue to be one of the largest donors directly assisting those in Zimbabwe who need the most help. Last year, we provided support that helped to feed 4 million people, to fight HIV/AIDS, to support smallholder farming and to provide access to basic education, clean water and shelter. I am pleased to announce to the House that the Government will be allocating a further £9 million to provide food to the most hungry. That funding, through the World Food Programme, will provide food to more than 4 million of the country's poorest and most vulnerable families, including many children. I can give the House the assurance that although most of the £9 million will be used to provide food, a proportion of the funding will be used to strengthen monitoring systems to prevent political interference and ensure that food is received by the right people: the hungry and suffering people of Zimbabwe.
	The banning of non-governmental organisations has affected 1.5 million people and it demonstrates that Mugabe is using hunger as a political weapon with a callous disregard for human life. It is crucial that NGOs are allowed to restart operations, and the United Nations humanitarian co-ordinator held talks on Monday to seek the full or at least partial lifting of the ban on NGO activity.
	Many hon. Members have suggested a range of additional measures. For us, the test has to be whether any additional measure targets Mugabe's elite or whether it harms ordinary Zimbabweans, or, indeed, the poorest of Africans.
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings, the motion lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Temporary Standing Order (Topical debates).

Members' Salaries

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I invite the Leader of the House to move the first motion relating to Members' salaries, it may help the House if I set out the procedure to be followed. All six motions and related amendments are to be debated together. At the end of the debate, I will ask Members whose amendments are selected to the first motion to move them formally at the appropriate point, and then the first motion will be put. All other motions and amendments selected on Members' salaries will then be put without further debate.

Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
	That this House notes Sir John Baker's Review of Parliamentary Pay and Allowances (Cm 7416), and is of the opinion that the recommendations in the Review for the annual salary of a Member of this House to be increased by reference to a linkage to the Public Sector Average Earnings Index combined with regular reviews of the salary and the link should be implemented, such that—
	(1) from 1st April 2008 and from 1st April of each subsequent year a Member'ssalary should be increased by the percentage increase in the 3 month average Public Sector Average Earnings Index for January of that year relative to the figure for January of the previous year;
	(2) the SSRB should conduct a review of Members' salaries in the first year of each new Parliament unless such a review has taken place within the preceding two years;
	(3) at such a review the SSRB should consider either or both of:
	(a) an adjustment to the salary
	(b) a different formula from that specified in paragraph (1) above to ensure that the level of salary remains adequate for recruitment and retention, appropriate for the responsibilities and reasonable in relation to total reward for jobs of similar weight in the public sector, to take effect from the first 1st April following the first meeting of the new Parliament;
	(4) each year the SSRB chair should notify the Speaker of the change in salary
	(expressed as a percentage) and, on such notification to the Speaker, that change
	should have effect, subject to any further notification given following a review
	under paragraph (2);
	(5) the Speaker should lay before the House:
	(a) any notification received from the SSRB chair under paragraph (4) above; and
	(b) any report from the SSRB following a review under paragraph (2) above;
	(6) an additional salary payable to a Member under Resolutions of this House in respect of service as a chairman of select or general committees should be changed by the same percentage and from the same time as the salary of a Member.
	I will be as brief as possible in my opening speech, and there will be no Government speech to conclude the debate to allow as many hon. Members as possible to have the opportunity to speak.
	We have two debates this afternoon. The first is on Members' pay and the second will deal with two issues: the Members Estimate Committee report on reimbursement of our expenses and a resolution to prohibit the release of information held by the House authorities about Members' addresses and travel patterns.
	I suggest that there are three principles for hon. Members' salaries. First, MPs should be properly paid for the work that they do to ensure that anyone can be a Member, not just the wealthy. Secondly, given that MPs are paid from the public purse, we should show the same discipline in our pay increases as we expect from the public sector. Thirdly, for the future, and following today's debate, we, like everyone else, should not determine our own pay or vote on our own pay increases.
	In January, the House agreed that Sir John Baker should conduct a review and report on a review mechanism for increasing hon. Members' salaries without Members having to vote on that, and for determining the frequency with which reviews will take place and the appropriate comparator for Members' pay. I am grateful to Sir John Baker, whose report the Government published on 17 June, for his work.
	Sir John's report made several recommendations. I shall list the key ones. First, the Senior Salaries Review Body should be the mechanism for periodic reviews of Members' pay. The Government agree with that. Secondly, the SSRB's periodic review should be once per Parliament. The Government agree with that. Thirdly, MPs' pay should be increased each year at the rate of the public sector average earnings index. The Government do not agree with that, and propose an alternative. Fourthly, there should be £650 a year catch-up for each of the three years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The Government do not agree with that and propose that it be rejected.

Simon Hughes: Are the Government taking a different view of the Baker recommendations on pay because they believe that MPs would be paid too much?

Harriet Harman: We take the view that the recommendation is not consistent with the Government's pay policy and approach to public sector pay. Later, I will set out our approach to the current position.
	I have tabled a series of motions, which will allow the House to vote for Sir John's proposal for a comparator or for the Government's proposal. They will allow hon. Members to vote separately on whether to accept or reject the three £650 catch-ups.
	Sir John Baker's comparator proposal is opinion motion No. 1, the Government's proposal is opinion motion No. 2, and Sir John Baker's £650 catch-ups is opinion motion No. 3. Both the opinion motions on Sir John's proposal and the Government's proposal provide for arrangements for future, independent reviews of hon. Members' pay. Both the Baker and the Government motions provide that: the SSRB should remain the independent body, which conducts reviews of hon. Members' pay; those reviews should occur once in each Parliament, and that the outcome of those reviews should be implemented without the need for further debates or votes in the House. In both opinion motions, those arrangements are set out in paragraphs 2 and 3. Whether the House chooses the Baker or the Government proposals, that should be the last time we have such a debate or vote in this House.

Oliver Heald: The Leader of the House knows that I sit on the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It may be for Members' convenience to know that the Chairman has written to the Speaker—the document is in the public domain—welcoming the decision to have a genuinely independent mechanism for setting Members' pay and also supporting the Members Estimate Committee report.

Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful information. That view is shared in all parties. It is the Government's view and that of the public that we should not have to set out own pay and that there should be a proper, independent and fair mechanism to do that. Whether hon. Members vote for the Baker proposals or for the Government proposals, the review mechanism will be established.

Jim Sheridan: I understand where my right hon. and learned Friend is coming from in that, if we accept Baker's recommendations, it could upset or throw a bad light on the Government's pay policy for this year. However, what will be the position in subsequent years? Do we know what the Government's pay policy will be next year and the year after that?

Harriet Harman: The Government's approach to dealing with the danger of inflation and wanting to ensure that interest rates remain low and that the economy remains on a stable course is reflected in our view that public sector pay increases should be consistent with 2 per cent. We have urged public sector unions and negotiators to accept three-year deals. I will say more about that shortly.

Christopher Chope: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps it would assist the House if I made some progress. I will take interventions if I have not dealt with points that hon. Members wish to raise. I ask hon. Members to let me simply set out the position and, if I have not answered a question, I will give way. May I do that?

Christopher Chope: Yes.

Harriet Harman: Thank you.
	Let me consider the comparator—the index to which MPs' pay should be pegged in future. Sir John's preferred option is the public sector average earnings index, but the Government do not accept that for two reasons. The main reason is that, this year, it would result in an increase of 3.5 per cent., which does not reflect our view that public sector pay settlements should be consistent with the achievement of the consumer prices index inflation target of 2 per cent. Secondly, we believe that our proposal for basing our increase on a basket of public sector employees' salaries is preferable—that is, making the comparator for Members' salaries the median of the increase in the pay settlements of a basket of 15 public sector work forces. They include judges, doctors, teachers and civil servants in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. Our opinion motion No. 2 sets out the 15 public sector work forces who would form the comparator.

John Butterfill: rose—

Harriet Harman: I can deal with all the points as I go along, but it would probably be better for hon. Members to hear the line of argument and the information on the Government's view. However, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman as chair of the pension fund.

John Butterfill: Does the Leader of the House also agree that the Government's proposals and, indeed, those that they made to Sir John Baker when he was preparing his report, have been rejected out of hand in Sir John's subsequent report?

Harriet Harman: I would not say that those proposals have been rejected out of hand. They were not Sir John's preferred option—I make no bones about that. We have tabled Sir John's option and published the report. Everyone can see what Sir John said about his preferred option. Although the Government accept a considerable amount of what Sir John proposed in his review and are grateful for his work, we do not accept the comparator and the catch-up, because we believe that they are not consistent with the approach that we want the public sector to take on pay. If I may, I will develop the argument on that.
	Our opinion motion No. 2 sets out the 15 public sector work forces who would form the comparator. That mechanism would be understandable by the public, who would see our pay connected to a group of public servants, and would deliver 2.25 per cent. this year. That is lower than the first year of the current three-year settlement for nurses of 2.75 per cent., but higher than the settlement received by salaried doctors and dentists. For future years, the terms of the motion would ensure that Members' salary increases were consistent with our approach to the rest of the public sector.
	Let me turn to the catch-up payments in opinion motion No. 3. The Government do not accept Sir John's recommendation that Members' salaries should be increased by an additional £650 each year for the next three years. MPs do important work, which is the foundation stone of our democracy. We do not hear about this in the media, but over the past five years our pay has fallen behind inflation. The Government do not reject the catch-up because we think that MPs are overpaid—far from it—but only because it would not be consistent with the approach that we are taking to the rest of the public sector. Combined with Sir John's comparator, the annual £650 catch-up would bring our annual pay increase to 4.55 per cent. On that basis, we reject it.
	Let me turn to the amendments on the Order Paper. Amendment (d) to opinion motion No.1, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) and of other hon. Members, would have the effect of implementing the Baker comparator, but limiting the increase to hon. Members' salaries to no more than 2.75 per cent. this year, 2.3 per cent. next year and 2.25 per cent. in 2010-11. Amendment (d) would then provide for the increases forgone under the Baker comparator to be paid from 1 April 2011, in addition to the increase that year due to the average earnings index. That would amount to an increase of approximately 6.7 per cent. in 2011-12. That is not consistent with the Government's public sector pay approach and we ask the House to reject it.
	Amendment (a) to opinion motion No. 1 stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and of many other hon. Members. It would implement the Baker comparator, but limit the increase to hon. Members' salaries for the current year to no more than 2.3 per cent. Amendment (a) would then provide for the 1.2 per cent. forgone from the Baker comparator to be paid from 1 April 2009, in addition to the Baker comparator increase that year due to the average earnings index. That would amount to an increase of approximately 4.7 per cent. in 2009-10. That is also not consistent with our public sector pay policy and we ask the House to reject it.
	Finally, amendment (e) to opinion motion No.1, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central, would have the effect of ensuring that Members' pensions entitlements would be the same as they would have been if the Baker pay proposal had been implemented in full. The parliamentary pension scheme bases pensions on a Member's salary in their last 12 months of service. A principle of public service pensions is that pensions are based on pay that people have received and contributions that they have made, not the pay that they would have received if circumstances had been different. Accepting amendment (e) would create a precedent. If we allowed that approach for MPs, it would be more difficult for the Government to resist the same approach from elsewhere in the public sector. We therefore ask the House to reject amendment (e).
	Let me turn to amendments (b) and (a) to opinion motion No.3. Amendment (b) to that motion, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central, would have the effect of delaying until 2010 the three separate £650 catch-up payments proposed by Sir John, although the full amount of £1,950 would be paid in one go in 2010, rather than being spread over the preceding three years. Again for the reasons that I have explained, that is not consistent with the Government's approach and we ask the House to reject amendment (b).
	Amendment (a) to opinion motion No. 3, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn and of many other hon. Members, proposes to accept the Baker catch-up payments of £650, but delay their start date by one year. Even though the catch-up would be delayed, starting next year rather than this year, catch-ups are not consistent with the Government's approach to public sector pay, as I have said. We therefore ask the House to reject amendment (a). The combined effect of the two amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn would be an increase of about 5.7 per cent. next year, which would be the combination of the deferred indexation increase and the catch-up of £650.
	Although the Government have a clear view on the different elements of the Baker proposals, it is for the House to decide these matters. I hope that the Government position will be supported, for the reasons that I have explained.

Christopher Chope: The terms of reference that the right hon. and learned Lady gave Sir John Baker were to
	"ensure that the independent mechanism takes account of the Government's policy on public sector pay and its target for inflation".—[ Official Report, 23 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 56WS.]
	Is that not exactly what he did? If she is saying that he did not comply with those terms of reference, should she not have referred the report back to him, so that he could comply with them?

Harriet Harman: I make no criticism of the work that Sir John has done in his review. When a review is commissioned, the Government remain entitled to put forward their response and to tell the House and others whether they agree with its findings, having considered the arguments. We are then able to put forward our view, and that is what we are doing.

Simon Hughes: I understand the Government's position. They took a similar position when they asked somebody to advise on nurses' pay in England, but then rejected that advice, and when they asked somebody to advise independently on police pay, when they also rejected that advice. What is the right hon. and learned Lady's advice today for those of us who have consistently said that if we ask an external body to recommend, we should follow its recommendation, and who voted accordingly on nurses' pay and police pay?

Harriet Harman: We are making an alternative proposal to that which Sir John Baker has put forward. We are also proposing to the House that after today, when the SSRB, which we propose as the mechanism for independent review, reviews the issue in the first year of the next Parliament, it will not be for the Government, or indeed any hon. Member, to vote on whatever proposition is put forward, which will instead be notified to the Speaker and implemented. As I have said, this is the last time that the House will be able to vote on propositions that are put forward, before the Government take a view and then seek to win support in the House.
	I hope that the Government position will be supported, but whatever the House decides, I should like to take this opportunity to say that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members carry out their duties with probity, energy, dedication and commitment. The media reporting that includes expenditure on the salaries of our staff and on our office costs and which says that they are part of our salary is misleading and often malicious. After today, when we have, as I hope, established the independent review mechanism and reformed our system of allowances, I hope that we will be able to get on with our work in the interests of our constituents, of this country and of our democracy, free from the innuendo and misrepresentations about pay that have hung over this House for too long.

Theresa May: Like the Government, the official Opposition will not be offering a wind-up speech today, in order to give more hon. Members the opportunity to speak. Also, I will speak only briefly on the motions and amendments before the House.
	The House has an opportunity today to take an important and historic decision on the way in which it is run and the way in which Members of Parliament are remunerated. This decision could start to restore the broken trust between the people and their politicians. Sadly, too many people have felt for too long that MPs have their snouts in the trough. I will not go into the way in which the media have encouraged that view, but I have said in previous debates on this issue that they need to look at the way in which they report expenditure on our members of staff, for example, as being part of our own salaries. That gives most people a totally distorted picture of the situation of Members of Parliament.
	It is true, however, that people are concerned about what they see in relation to our expenses and allowances—which we will be debating later—and about the fact that we decide on our own levels of pay. Notwithstanding the fact that, over the years, Governments of various colours have urged and exercised restraint on pay—indeed, the Leader of the House has urged us to exercise restraint again today—there is still a feeling that MPs should not be able to set their own levels of financial reward. I share that feeling, as does the Conservative party. Indeed, more than a year ago, we proposed that MPs should stop voting on their own pay and start looking into ways in which that could be undertaken.
	We welcome the principle of the proposal put forward by Sir John Baker for a mechanism to determine the level of pay at the start of a Parliament, and for decisions on annual pay changes thereafter to be made by the same outside body, the Senior Salaries Review Body, rather than by this House. As I have said, I welcome the principle of the Baker review, but I also agree with the Government that we should adopt a different index for determining those annual pay increases. The measure proposed by the Government would give a lower increase than that proposed by Sir John Baker, based on the current known figures, but I support it because it is preferable as a measure for determining annual pay increases to that proposed by Sir John.

John Spellar: Did we not get into this difficulty in the first place by being linked to pay rates rather than to earnings? Modern management often looks at lower basic rates, but then looks at performance-related payments to determine the overall package of earnings. Will this proposal not lead us straight back to the problem that we have had before, which led to the big disparity that the Baker review has rightly identified?

Theresa May: One of the important things that we shall be able to do today is to take this whole issue away from the House, which is crucial. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he is suggesting that the Government's proposal relates to earnings rather than to increases in earnings. In fact, it relates to annual increases in earnings, albeit for a different and very particular group of workers, as identified in the proposal.

John Spellar: If the right hon. Lady is basing her policy on that, I am afraid that she is basing it on a misapprehension. The Government's proposal relates to settlements, and settlements are rates rather than earnings. This has been a consistent problem with public sector pay—first with increments and subsequently even more with the senior civil service—because so much emphasis is now placed on performance-related pay. Indeed, the SSRB's latest report on senior salaries adds another 1 per cent.—up to 8 per cent. of total salaries—to the performance pot. Settlements and earnings are quite different things. This is how we got into this problem, with our link to the senior civil service; the rates have stuck, but the earnings have gone up. [ Interruption.]

Theresa May: Hon. Members are suggesting that I should just accept that, because the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Speaker's advisory panel on these matters, knows what he is talking about. However, I am going to continue to disagree with him on this matter. The Government have brought forward a proposal that relates to increases. I acknowledge that it does not include bonuses—it excludes that opportunity—but it is entirely reasonable. The House should be willing to recognise that we need to set an example and to send out the signal that MPs are willing to look at their pay and put into place a different structure for the future. I therefore support the Government's proposal for a different index.

John Butterfill: Has my right hon. Friend not studied in detail Sir John Baker's recommendations? In particular, paragraph 39 of his report states:
	"I conclude that an approach to uprating based on a basket of comparators cannot satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph 32 above."
	That is the whole principle behind the proposals. On that basis, does my right hon. Friend totally disagree with Sir John Baker's recommendations?

Theresa May: I hoped that I had made it clear that I do not totally disagree with Sir John's proposals. I agree with the principles behind his proposals, and with the mechanism that he has proposed—namely, the review that should take place in the first year of a Parliament, followed by automatic annual increases in pay on the basis of some measure. I disagree with two aspects of his proposals. The first is the index that should be adopted. The second is the issue of the catch-up payments over the next three years. That is why I do not agree with those hon. Members who have tabled amendments seeking to delay the implementation of the principle of the Baker review while ensuring that we receive the full proposed increase, albeit at a later date. I believe that we should now take the decision to accept that it would not be right for the House of Commons to continue to vote on our pay, and I hope that that view is shared across the House. We should also accept that a sensible mechanism has been proposed, and I hope that that view is shared across the whole House as well.
	In recognition not only of the Government's present public sector pay stance but of our responsibility as Members of Parliament to send the right signals to our constituents about the approach that we are willing to take in recognition of the concerns that they have expressed about our pay and costs, it is right that we should not take the uprating that Sir John Baker has proposed through the catch-up payments over the next three years. When restraint is being encouraged for others by the Government, it is right that Members of Parliament should be willing to accept such restraint for ourselves and to say that we will not vote on our own pay in future.
	We should start that process off by showing, in this final vote, that we are willing to stand up and be counted and to exercise the restraint that we are encouraging in others. That is why I do not support the amendments that have been tabled today, and why I support the motion that sets out the Government's proposals on the index and the mechanism that are to be used.

Simon Hughes: We are now having the debate that we all knew we had to have, and I take a very simple view on this matter. I expressed that view to the Leader of the House in an earlier question. We have had this nonsense year after year for all the time that I have been in this place—25 years, the same length of time as the Leader of the House. We are now rightly saying, "Let's stop this annual game of trying to work out what we think we can get away with in our pay increase. Let's have an independent system." That has been agreed, which is a blessed relief.
	We have asked two lots of people—the Senior Salaries Review Body and Sir John Baker—to give us a comparator and a starting point. Effectively, they have both come back with the same answer, saying, "Here is a comparator that we have worked out, having looked at lots of alternatives and rejected them, and here is a starting point."
	I should like to remind colleagues of what Sir John Baker said on the uprating mechanism. He said that it should meet certain criteria, including that
	"it must be easy to understand, independent and authoritative, transparent and not capable of manipulation; it should be sustainable over a number of Parliaments...it should be based on pay comparators and not price comparators...It should reflect movements in earnings and not settlements."
	He rejected linking us to the civil service, for very good reasons, and rejected an approach based on another suggested basket of comparators. He came to a view that he recommends indexation. He could not have been clearer about that. He drew on the work of the Senior Salaries Review Body and suggested that the public sector average earnings index was the right comparator. He says:
	"I am sure, having considered and discussed the options extensively, that this is the best solution. It meets all the criteria in paragraph 32 above and I believe that, if implemented, it would be likely to last for many years... Other public sector workers may argue that it is unfair if MPs' pay is automatically indexed to earnings while they have to negotiate",
	but he concludes that it will provide the safest, most secure and most appropriate long-term comparison. Otherwise, he says, we will be in the same debate again, because we will either go ahead or fall behind the average public sector wage and we will not have what we want, which is the break between this debate and an annual recurrent questioning of the issue. I am clear that—for myself no more than anyone else—we really must get into a system that has an objectively assessed basis from the beginning and an objectively assessed comparison thereafter.
	Let me put this point directly to the Government, as there is no other way of putting it. Of course, Governments have a pay policy and will always have a pay policy, but we cannot predict what it is going to be. Some of us have taken the consistent position that if we ask for independent advice about public sector pay, we should follow it—whether it be for nurses, the police or whatever. There is no logic in taking one view and then not adopting the same view for ourselves.
	Somewhat more personally, let me say that it is easy for the Government to say, "Hold back, everybody", because everyone in the Government is paid significantly more than anyone else here. I make that as a practical household point. Nobody in the Government will be affected in the same way as people who are not in the Government. That is obvious. I think there are only two other people in the House who get top-up salaries other than the Back-Bench MP salary.
	As to the amendments, I can see the attractiveness of saying, "Hang on a minute, people; let us be careful; let us not implement this now", but a proposal that says, "Not now, but catch up next year", or "Not now, but catch up later" is, bluntly, a bit of a deception and not as honest and straightforward as going straight for the proposal before us now. Obviously, it is a less bad option than not linking into the independent system. Moving slowly towards that remains preferable to not moving to the independent system at all. I accept that and I understand that that is why the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) and the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) are proposing amendments. I hope that colleagues will have the straightforward common sense to say, "Let's grasp the nettle, accept the independent report, accept the overwhelmingly strong argument that Sir John Baker gives and solve the problem", rather than have it coming back just before and just after a general election or at any time in the future.

Tony Lloyd: The House certainly owes Sir John Baker a considerable measure of gratitude for setting out, as he intended to do, an "independent, objective and robust" process, which removes MPs for ever from it. What we have to do today is ensure that we remove ourselves indefinitely from that process by whatever mechanism.
	Public confidence in Members of Parliament relies on our grasping the nettle—of taking this House by our own hands—but it also depends and MPs' confidence depends on the Government taking themselves out of the process. As Sir John says in paragraph 10,
	"if MPs are prepared to relinquish their control over their salaries, then the Government also has to forgo any possibility of directly seeking to intervene in the process".
	The problem with the Government's position today is that their motion will not achieve that.
	Sir John is clear that any settlement should reflect movements in earnings rather than settlements. He goes into that at great length in paragraph 32 and he later makes it very clear that the problem with the SCS—senior civil service—index is that it is open to manipulation by the Government, which is one reason why he rejects the validity of that index for the short or longer term. Wherever we get to today, we must get back on to the Baker track.
	Other Members may disagree with my proposals. Frankly, it is a matter of individual judgment on what is effectively a free vote for Opposition Members and Back Benchers. People will disagree over the rate at which we should adopt the Baker review proposals, but we should all certainly accept the Baker index and the Baker reference point as the starting point for our salary.

Michael Spicer: I have very cordial relations with my opposite number, but may I ask him what is so special about the next Parliament? Sir John makes the point on the first page of his report that there is no right time for MPs to have their pay altered, so why is the next Parliament likely to be any better than this one?

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman anticipates exactly what I was coming on to say, so let me continue with my explanation of why I tabled the amendment. One justification may be regarded as a nuance, but before the Baker proposals come into operation, there will have been a general election. That gives every Member the opportunity to face their own electorates in the light of the offer by Sir John Baker. There will be an electoral test, which is not a trivial point and represents a specific advantage.
	Let me explain another reason. If Members look at the figures that I have chosen for the uprating of pay this year, next year and in the first half of 2010, they will find that they are identical to the figures applied to nurses and other public health workers. This is a time of restraint in public pay; whether or not Members agree with that, it is a reality. It is also a reality that people up and down this land are feeling the impact of the belt-tightening that is inevitable when energy and food prices increase. In that context, there is an expectation that MPs should look at their own role, which is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) has tried to reflect in his amendment—the need to recognise that now is not the right time to rush straight into the full Baker proposals. What we are discussing is the extent to which we need to operate through restraint and in the light of the test of a general election.

Kevan Jones: Does not my hon. Friend's amendment basically push payments into the next Parliament? In one case, for example, a payment of £1,950 is pushed into the next Parliament, along with the main implications of the Baker review. New Members will be elected, having had no say in this whatever, and my hon. Friend's crazy suggestions for pensions would give retiring Members a cash bung that they had not earned.

Tony Lloyd: Under any independent system, MPs will have no say over their salaries, irrespective of whether they are new or old Members. That is the whole point of what we are trying to achieve today. My hon. Friend thinks that my proposals on pensions are crazy, but the one group of people who will lose out in any period of restraint are those who either choose to retire or who are forcibly retired at the next election. The second part of my amendment is designed to protect those who will leave at the end of this Parliament.

John Butterfill: I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's proposals on pensions. I am not at all sure—I have not yet had the opportunity of taking legal advice—but I doubt whether his amendment would work legally. It might well require an amendment to the parliamentary pensions legislation, but it would certainly need an order to be made. As it stands, it cannot work. As currently presented, it is incompetent.

Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who probably knows more about parliamentary pensions than anyone else, but may I tell him that I have sought advice? He is absolutely right that this would require an order. In fact, any expression of opinion in the House today will need translating into action by way of a money order, for example. The fact that a proposal will need subsequent Executive action is not of itself a barrier to the necessary action being taken. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with how the pension scheme will operate, but I can assure him that the proposals in the amendment are both legally and technically do-able.

Andrew Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that the combination of catch-up that we would forgo and two and a half years of further wage restraint, which he suggests we undertake, would mean that when the catch-up came in the new Parliament it would be a significant increase? That would make life difficult for all the Members of that new Parliament in terms of wages.

Tony Lloyd: Except, of course, that the level that Members would be at would not differ from what it would be if we brought in Baker now. It may be a big increase at the time, but that would be precisely because Members had forgone some element of it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) may want to urge me not to give away that amount of money in the meantime—that is a perfectly sustainable argument to make, and I understand it because it is a matter of judgment as to what we face the public with—but it is not legitimate to say that because we would end up at the same point the public ought to judge us harshly. The public ought to judge us well for having shown some restraint in the meantime. I do not necessarily believe that that would be the case, but it ought to be. We would not be getting more; we would be getting less. The catch-up would be all the steeper because it would be catch-up at that point.
	The central point that I want to put before the House is the fact that we need to get on to the Baker mechanism, although it is a matter of judgment when. We must ensure that the Baker mechanism is what Baker described—the average index of public sector earnings—because anything other than that would see MPs continue to fall behind in the long-term future. We have to recognise the fact that Baker said that we were sufficiently far behind that we needed the catch-up. The judgment for the House today is at what speed we should reach that Baker trajectory.

David Maclean: When this matter was last discussed, I was one of those Members who argued strongly that some of us on the Members Estimate Committee should have the right to submit our own report, or at least a memorandum, to Sir John Baker. The Leader of the House kindly assented to that and three of us on the MEC—the hon. Members for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), and me—submitted a memorandum to Sir John on what pay and salary should be.
	I have been a Member of the House for 25 years. I have been privileged to be a Minister under Prime Minister Thatcher and under Prime Minister Major. I have taken pay freezes, pay standstills, pay cuts and pay deferments, and a fat lot of good it did for the respect in which Parliament or Ministers at the time were held. Whether or not Prime Minister Thatcher had a pay policy—I am certain she never did—we took a pay standstill when I was a Minister to set an example to everyone else. A fat lot of good it did us as well.
	In our submission to Sir John, we said:
	"Members of Parliament currently earn £61,820pa. Average tenure in the House is about 12 years, with no pay progression. The Hay Group—"
	of independent consultants—
	"have advised that average base salaries for each of the comparators groups lay between £70,000 and £80,000pa. Some comparators have bonus opportunities, and other incentive packages which can increase average total cash by £2-3,000pa."
	I refer to page 17 of volume 2 of the original SSRB report, which Sir John Baker chaired. He compared our salary to that of a head teacher. Our salary was £60,000 and the head teacher was on £71,000. The police superintendent was on £68,000. The senior civil servant, grade 1, was on £69,000. The county council second tier person was on £72,000. The colonel was on £69,000, as was the health human resources director and similar. The comparators in the SSRB report put those people way ahead of us.
	There is therefore no doubt that we have fallen considerably behind those whom the SSRB considered our comparators. And, of course, none of those people—except a colonel in Afghanistan—is working long hours. Most of them are not doing 70 or 80 hours a week. Apart from those on the very front-line who are making tactical decisions involving life or death, most of them do not have the responsibility that we have of voting on issues that do include life or death, whether it be embryos, abortion, 42 days or whatever. We have a responsibility to make mega-decisions. For that, we get the pay of a second tier officer in a district council. I look forward to replacing my district planning officer, if the motion is not passed today.
	Further in our evidence, we said to Sir John Baker's review:
	"Taking these together we, therefore, consider a salary point around the comparator average is justified by the facts. As a spot rate, it might, arguably, over-reward newcomers and under-reward experienced backbench Members, many of whom are former senior ministers who contribute substantially to the work of Parliament. But this is inherent in a system which has as a principle that the basic salary should be the same for all MPs."
	Some will get paid more, some will get paid less. We continued:
	"In our judgement a base salary of £75,000pa is very well-supported by the objective evidence available."
	I repeat that our evidence, which was based on the facts, the SSRB's original report and Sir John's report, shows that compared with every other public sector comparator—it would not be right to compare ourselves to executives in private enterprise; we are not—a basic salary of £75,000 is about right.
	I am making that point for colleagues so that I can collect most of the hate mail— I have rather a perverse incentive for getting that—and so that when they go back to their constituencies they can point out that they asked not for £75,000, which is correct, but for considerably less. If we vote for the Government motion, we will get considerably less. We will be able to point it out to our constituents that we are still not getting the pay that every independent comparator has asked for. Today, however, we have a chance to go slightly towards it.
	The Government's motion No. 1 is much more sensible than their motion No. 3. I can understand their pay policy. They are trying to invent some complex formula of indexing themselves to a group of civil servants who do not have pay formula indexation. That is nonsense and the Government have to try to square that circle. Government motion No. 1 is sensible and we should support it.
	There is, however, a better alternative, which is amendment (a) to Government motion No. 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). It is sensible and deserving of support. I will probably fundamentally disagree with him on expenses, where I think he is misguided, but that is another matter. On pay, I urge my hon. Friends and Labour Members to support his amendment (a). It would take us slightly along the route to where we need to be, although that may be a matter for another Parliament.
	Some of us might seriously think that we have laid this matter to rest once and for all and that we will never again have to vote on it, but I have heard that so many times. I have probably voted on the last time we will ever decide our pay on about a dozen occasions in the past 25 years. Unfortunately, I do not think that that can be the case. If we have to decide our pay, let it be based on the facts. Let it be based on the independent comparators. Then let us have the guts to do it and hold our heads up, saying to our constituents, "Yes, it was 2.3, 4.5 or 6.7 per cent., or whatever it was, but if we set up an independent pay review body, for goodness' sake let us pay attention to it." I said the same about police pay. I will happily meet my chief superintendent, who is going to be paid a lot more than me, and tell him that I argued that the recommendation of his pay review board should have been implemented as well.
	Today we have a chance to move slightly along the route towards securing a proper, sensible salary for ourselves. I support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islwyn to motion No. 1—it has not yet been moved, but I hope it will be—and I urge Members not to back any other proposal.

Don Touhig: It is always a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), who spoke very well. I wish to speak to my amendment (a), which has been signed by Members in all parts of the House.
	The amount that Members of Parliament should be paid is always a awkward subject for debate. The Members Estimate Committee described the issue well in its memorandum to Sir John Baker, referred to by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border:
	"Instead of being subject to objective analysis and sensible decision-making, Members' pay has become a serious distraction in public sector pay rounds, far beyond its real significance to the public purse."
	Time after time we are faced with the same row about Members' deciding their own pay, and time after time we come up with an arrangement that frustrates many and does not satisfy anyone—least of all the media and the public, who are always looking for some story to report. I therefore give a strong welcome to the mechanism outlined in Sir John Baker's review. It is fair, it is transparent, and it prevents Members from being put in the invidious position of having to vote on their own pay; although, given the experience of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, we may not be dealing with the issue for the last time today.
	For as long as we vote on this issue, we are trapped between a rock and a hard place. We see the vital need to increase public confidence in Members of Parliament—especially after some recently reported lapses which have, perhaps, done much to damage the reputation of Parliament—but we are sometimes extremely cautious about voting ourselves even the most modest pay increase, and whenever we do we can be sure that we will be portrayed as greedy and avaricious.
	I love my country, and I think that the British people are the finest, but I have no illusions about their views on MPs pay: they would not give us a penny if they had their way, and that is the truth of it. However, if we allow Members' pay to fall behind other public sector pay, we will face a time—in my view, a time long past—when only those who can afford it, only those with private means, can enter the House. I am the son of a miner and my mother was a home help. I am a working-class boy from the mining valleys of south Wales. I would never have got here on the basis of independent means. I say that with strong feeling. If the British people want Members of Parliament to be those who have plenty of wherewithal and do not need salaries, let them not vote for me at the next election, because I am the wrong guy to support.
	We currently earn less than a primary head teacher in central London, less than a secondary head teacher in many parts of Britain, less than a chief superintendent of police, and less than the head of IT in the Commons. It is only common sense for Members' pay to be determined completely independently of Parliament, and removed from any future political debate. That view was echoed by Sir John in his report. He wrote
	"if MPs are prepared to relinquish their control over their salaries, then the Government also has to forgo any possibility of directly seeking to intervene in the process".
	Would that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench took heed of that advice.
	It was the Government who set up the Baker review, and it was the Government who gave Sir John Baker his terms of reference. Now that he has delivered, however, the Government are actively seeking to trash his report. Indeed, they have tabled a motion proposing a pay formula which, at best, Sir John considered inferior. To de-politicise this hot potato once and for all, we should ensure that it is not a matter for Government policy in future. In that spirit, it makes much more sense for the House to accept the recommendations of an independent reviewer than to accept the views of the Government, who are not independent.
	Sir John's proposals offer a much-needed way in which to solve the problem, and I hope that the motion as amended will be approved. However, my hon. Friends and I, who have tabled amendments to motions Nos. 1 and 3, understand the Government's concern about the need for pay restraint. If the Baker recommendations were adopted, Members' pay would be uprated annually by about 3. 5 per cent. this year. In a year in which others are being asked to show pay restraint, Members want to set an example.

Michael Spicer: The right hon. Gentleman may wish to know that every member of the 18-man executive committee of the 1922 committee—bar two who were absent last night—has signed his amendment.

Don Touhig: I am grateful for that. It shows that the House is united in wishing to resolve the matter.
	The amendment to motion No. 1 accepts the formula set out by Baker, but proposes a increase of just 2.3 per cent. from 1 April this year. The amendment to motion No. 3 follows the Baker recommendation of a £650 top-up, but that would not kick in until 1 April 2009. The amendments would keep Members' pay within the framework of public sector pay while at the same time demonstrating restraint.
	I appreciate that some will say our amendment allows for pay restraint this year but, depending on the outcome of the next independent review, could breach Government pay guidelines next year. That is perfectly true, but I have no crystal ball. I do not know what the Government's pay policy will be next year, or what the review might produce next year. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) seems to rely on a crystal ball. If it is accepted, on 1 October 2010 Members of Parliament will receive an increase of about £6,000 to £8,000 a year. Clearly, then, there will be no Government pay policy in 2010. There is a cardinal rule that we should remember: no Parliament can bind another. There will be a new House of Commons in October 2010, and it might not take the same view as we take today. If we agree to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend, that new House might say, "Well, we're not going to implement that after all." It is important that we bear that mind.
	It is often argued that Members are in a no-win situation when voting on their pay, and I am sure that we will be criticised whatever we do. However, if we do not take these decisions now, we run the risk of falling further behind other public sector workers. The only outcome of this eventuality is that in future we will be faced with voting for an even bigger increase in order to catch up, and where will we be then?
	The Government have tabled motion No. 2 as an alternative to Sir John's recommendation. I put it to colleagues that, however impressive it may look now to put on hair shirts and support proposals which would have the effect of reducing Members' pay increases for the short term, that will be storing up trouble in the long term. We might look good to the public at present, but in the long term we will be storing up a big pay increase. We are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the health service. Aneurin Bevan, the man who founded the NHS, summed up that sort of approach when he said that in life we cannot have both the crown of thorns and the 30 pieces of silver.
	The Government have to be seen to be doing something about pay, but although their position is understandable, it is not objective. Sir John Baker's independent review is genuinely objective. If our aim is to take Members' pay out of the domain of politics and put it in the hands of those who have no political axe to grind, let us support these recommendations. By supporting the two amendments in my name, the House would ensure that Members' pay would be, as much as is possible, de-politicised and would in future become part of the normal public sector pay system, while at the same time demonstrating the type of restraint that we have asked others to follow this year.
	I hope Members will support my amendment.

Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). I strongly support what he said and the view that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), who is the chairman of the 1922 committee, expressed in an intervention.
	In all my years in the House, I have very rarely voted on pay, because I have always found doing so extremely embarrassing. I do not think I have ever spoken on the subject before, but I feel moved to do so this afternoon because I am appalled by the attitude of the Government and of those on my own Front Bench.
	We have the independent review. Sir John has produced a report to which no one in their right mind can take exception, and I believe that we do ourselves and the public we serve a disservice if we slap Sir John in the face and do not accept his recommendation. I agree with the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islwyn, because it shows a degree of restraint.
	I want to talk this afternoon about the comparisons, however. Professional and business people come to my advice sessions for help and assistance. I correspond with them daily, and I always try, as I am sure colleagues do, to do my very best to assist them. Yet I am sure I am not the only Member who has observed that it has reached the stage where virtually every single one of them is earning significantly more than we are.
	When I entered the House in 1970, being an MP was regarded as a way of life rather than a job, and I still tend to look upon it in that light. The salary then was £3,250 a year, and there was no trough to get one's snout into because the only allowance we had back then was £500 towards the employment of a secretary. Indeed, only two years before I entered the House—when my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), who sits in front of me in this Chamber and who is present now, was already a Member—MPs were given postage costs for the first time.
	We have moved a long way since then. Some might say we have moved too far. There is no doubt that allowances were brought in because the Government of the day were not prepared to bite the bullet on salaries, or to acknowledge that this way of life had, indeed, become in a sense a job, and because it would be very wrong to exclude people such as the right hon. Member for Islwyn.
	I do not mind saying that when I came into this House as a fairly impoverished schoolmaster, I looked for outside earnings to subsidise my work here, and my wife worked for me for more than five years without receiving a penny piece—it was the only way we could do it. We have perhaps over-compensated on some of the allowances—some of which I do not particularly approve of, although I do approve of the ones that we are mainly talking about this afternoon—but I believe that we ought to have some pride in ourselves and what we seek to do for others.
	Also, it is not unfair to have some regard to what those who work in this place with us and for us earn. I took the opportunity to consult our admirable Library, and in 1970, when a Member of Parliament's salary was £3,250, the Clerk of the House got £8,600. Today, we have what we have and the Clerk of the House gets £160,000—and God bless him, but there are very few senior people in the Clerks Department who are not earning significantly more than Members of Parliament. There are quite a significant number in our Library who earn more than Members of Parliament. There are people in the catering department who earn more.
	I do not begrudge any of those people a ha'penny of what they earn, but I do know that most of them do not work the 70 or 80 hours a week to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) referred, and which we have to do if we are to do our jobs remotely properly. So this afternoon, which is another compulsory exercise in navel-gazing which none of us likes, let us grasp the nettle once and for all—I hope that it will be once and for all, although I do take the points made by my right hon. Friend. I hope that a future Parliament does not have to debate this again, and that Sir John's wishes can be fulfilled. I hope that from now onwards, whatever is earned by Members of Parliament will be determined elsewhere, but we are not going to assist that process if we follow the Government and the Opposition Front Benchers' line this afternoon.
	I endorse the points made by the right hon. Member for Islwyn when he talked about the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). If that amount of money is piled up—if we have another two or three years of some degree of austerity—we will put the next Parliament in the position where it would have to reject that £6,000 or £8,000 pile-up; it could not accept it. What Sir John Baker has given us is the opportunity to have a modest increase on a modest salary, and to give the determination of future salaries to another body, so that we can get on with what we are sent here to do and not have to bother with it.
	I strongly support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islwyn. I hope that colleagues in all parts of the House will do likewise, and I trust that this will indeed be the last occasion on which we shall have to debate these matters.

John Butterfill: I fear that where we are now is not where we expected to be when we last had a debate on this subject, on 24 January. At that time, I think the whole House agreed that this matter of our pay should be taken out of our hands and given to an independent adviser of the Government's choosing, who would report to us, that we would implement whatever that adviser suggested, and that henceforth all these rather sordid matters would be taken out of our hands.
	That is not, sadly, the position that we find ourselves in today, and I have to say that I do not think that the Government have acted fairly in any way in relation to the undertakings given on 24 January. They decided to ask Sir John Baker to report to the House and implied that they would accept whatever he recommended, so that it would not be a matter of contention on a party political or any other basis. That is not where we are today.
	The other problem is that the Government have changed their position on a lot of the aspects of the Baker report during the course of its evolution. It is worth examining those aspects. When the Government made their recommendation to Sir John about the correct work force comparator for Members of Parliament, they said in paragraph 17 of their submission that
	"the correct workforce comparator for determining MPs pay uplifts"
	was senior civil service pay. They claimed that that had been supported by the Senior Salaries Review Body. It is true that the SSRB supported it at one time, but as Sir John Baker made clear in his report, he no longer supports it. It is worth quoting what he said on that subject. In paragraphs 32 to 36—the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) commented on the criteria contained in paragraph 32— Sir John states that for various reasons, which he sets out in great detail, he no longer thinks that SCS pay is the appropriate comparator. Paragraph 37 states that
	"I no longer believe that any linkage to the SCS would be a sound, independent mechanism",
	and goes on to give his reasons for that. In summarising, he states:
	"Thus it is clear that linkage to the SCS does not satisfy the criteria of independence, transparency, simplicity or freedom from risk of manipulation and would be unsuitable as an automatic uprating mechanism."
	He clearly repudiates the proposal put to him by the Government in their initial paper.
	Sir John goes on to examine details of the other proposals and the basket of comparators, which he restricts to public sector pay. Of course, many Members have said that they should be restricted to public sector pay, because we are public sector workers. However, the SSRB has said in the past that we ought to be compared with people in the private sector, because our Members are not drawn exclusively from people who have been working in the public sector. Probably the overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members are drawn from the private sector.
	We must have some reason for people to want to come here, considering the amount of income that they are likely to give up—even those from the public sector. We run a risk of our recruitment being of interest only to public sector employees or, as has been said, those who are so well off that it does not matter, for whom this is a hobby. We hope that there are not too many of them.
	Sir John deals in great detail with comparators in the public sector, particularly in paragraph 39. He states:
	"There are practical obstacles to the use of such a basket for an automatic uprating system."
	I shall not bore the House with all the reasons that he gives for that, but everybody can read the paragraph. He goes on to state:
	"Again I conclude that an approach to uprating based on a basket of comparators cannot satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph 32 above."
	One reason is that he believes that if they are exclusively public sector comparators, they are capable of being manipulated by the Government from time to time. He wants to avoid that, because he does not think that it would be a robust way of going forward. He points out that in 2007, PricewaterhouseCoopers, which was then advising the SSRB,
	"recommended that the PSAEI"—
	the public sector average earnings index—
	"be used to uprate MPs' pay and pointed to some of the problems that would be caused by an attempt to link MPs' pay to settlements"
	rather than to what was actually being paid. He says:
	"At that time the SSRB was reluctant to follow PwC's advice, but on reflection I believe PwC were right and, as I explain above, a new linkage to the SCS as previously proposed by the SSRB would not satisfy the test of independence".
	Nor does he believe that a basket of comparators would be appropriate. The basket now proposed by the Government is so huge, complex, opaque and open to different interpretations that it would be impossible to implement. The Government are asking us to accept smoke and mirrors today.
	Sir John concludes, in paragraph 46:
	"I am sure, having considered and discussed the options extensively, that this"—
	the PSAEI option—
	"is the best solution. It meets all the criteria in paragraph 32 above and I believe that, if implemented, it would be likely to last for many years. However, I also recognise that it has presentational difficulties for both the Government and MPs themselves."
	If the Government were to act in good faith, they should accept those presentational difficulties and the House should also accept them. Having said that, I also accept that there is a problem in the present climate with accepting Baker in full. Although Baker probably should be accepted in full, we need to continue to try to set an example, even though that has been ignored in the past. By the way, our pay has increased—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to cut off the hon. Gentleman, but he has had his eight minutes.

John Butterfill: Could I just say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I dare say that the House could listen to some speeches for a considerable length of time this afternoon because of their informed and reasoned content, but we are operating under a time limit.

Peter Bottomley: If the House did not hear the last remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), he said that he accepted the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig).
	Although it would not be proper to vote against the motion, I think that the House has set off on the wrong course. Ministers and Members of Parliament have to take tough decisions, and the idea that we are too weak or feeble to set our own pay every now and again is wrong. However, the general consensus seems to have moved on, so perhaps we will have to come back to that in the next Parliament.
	I also believe strongly that we should not have pay increases from one general election to another. Pay should not be set at the beginning of a Parliament: it should be set in advance to come into effect at the beginning of a Parliament, so everyone knows the rate of pay for a bog-standard Member of Parliament after the election. Perhaps as well as putting our party and address on our ballot paper, we should suggest the level of pay we would be willing to accept. If I decided that I wanted to be paid more than the Liberal Democrat and less than the Labour candidate, people could judge whether we were worth it—[ Interruption.] That may be going a step too far.
	If we assume that the standard rate of pay will apply to each of us, the question is what that rate should be. When I first spoke on this subject, Enoch Powell intervened and asked whether I was aware that there were more candidates than places, and did not that suggest a certain superfluity—he probably used a much better word. The point was then put back to him that instead of being paid, we could have a nominal tax of, say, £2,000 a year, so there would then be exactly the right number of candidates to match the number of constituencies, and then he might be satisfied with the calibre of his colleagues.
	The truth is that in the past it was the poor and well-off who became Members of Parliament, not those on middle incomes, and that would happen again under these proposals. When I first got elected, I had been running a small neon lighting business putting bright lights outside theatres and cinemas in the west end. I worked with 25 people. When I became a Member of Parliament in 1975 my pay dropped from £5,000 a year to the £3,200 that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) mentioned. When we had these debates, I then found that if, at that election, I had been a number three ranking person in the London borough of Lambeth, where we then had a home, I would have earned about 20 per cent. more.
	I take the view that the right level of pay for a general practitioner in politics is about the same as for a general practitioner in medicine, but that does not work any more because GPs are getting significantly more than I thought they were. It would be quite easy to pick a rate of pay that would sound about right and we could then say to the public that we would not take the increases between elections and that we would keep the Government out of it.
	It is perfectly understandable why the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made the speeches that they did, but they were not the sort of speeches to which a Member of this House should pay attention. We should either support the amendment or reject the increases and say that we will determine that we will set our rate of pay with advice from Baker or some equivalent. It could then come into effect at the next election when both we and the public know what the terms of trade will be.

Angela Browning: I have taken a close interest in this subject since being, in a former existence, the shadow Leader of the House. At that time, I made recommendations on behalf of the Conservatives to the SSRB and proposed that Members' pay should be linked to that of a chief executive of a small local authority, given that they deal with approximately the same population as us and deal with chief constables and others in public positions on the same basis as MPs. However, I do not think that even the recommendations in the Baker report are anywhere near what the chief executive of a small local authority earns.
	It is a great shame that today the House will be unable to accept the Baker recommendations for the reasons that many colleagues on both sides have given, especially when we want to depart from the practice of having to keep voting on our pay. I do not think that the public understand how much we object to it. It is almost as if their perception is that we want to make that decision because we will get more out of it, yet MPs' pay increases over the past five years have been extremely modest. Not only have they been modest in comparison with other public sector pay increases but they have been staged, too, which means that they have been worth less.
	I have no axe to grind, as I will leave the House at the next election, but I am well aware of the need for incentives to attract future generations to apply to become a MP and to consider representing a constituency. Although I know that we all do it for the best reasons, we, too, have to live. One great sadness, which the Leader of the House mentioned, is that we find ourselves in a great mishmash of misinformation. There are genuine problems with MPs' allowances that will need to be sorted out—they are the subject of the next debate—but the public perception is that our salary and our allowances are one and the same. That makes it particularly difficult to debate the salary alone and to accept something like the Baker report.
	I think that today's proposal is more to do with the public perception than with the Government's public sector pay policy. The Leader of the House is shaking her head, but we all know that out there the public have been led to believe—mainly by the tabloid press—that somehow secretaries' salaries and the range of allowances are rolled into one and that we as MPs receive them through our private bank accounts. We all know that is not true, but the fact remains that that is how the water has been muddied and why today we find the Government and Opposition Front Benchers seeking to make some sort of gesture that will convince the public that we are not greedy and so on.
	I speak as a Member who will be leaving the House. Incidentally, from what I have heard today, on retirement, a job in the House of Commons catering department looks extremely attractive, if only to keep me out of the house for a bit. I am sure that my husband would be delighted.
	Seriously, we are where we are, for all the reasons that every Member of the House knows. I will support amendment (a), which is in the name of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), because he has struck a good compromise. I say to Members who will be here long after I have departed: take courage in your hands. There will never be a good time to play catch-up with MPs' salaries. No matter what gestures we make today or in the future, there will always be a reason not to increase that salary. That is why I shall support the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
	 Amendment proposed: (a), in line 9, after the word 'year', to insert the words
	'provided that, without prejudice to the calculations based on the agreed formula, from 1st April 2008 the annual salary is increased by no more than 2.3 per cent. and that the balance of any increase due at 1st April 2008 should be payable from 1st April 2009 in addition to any increase payable at that date.'.— [Mr. Touhig.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 196.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than one and half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Speaker  put the  remaining  Question s necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motions relating to Members' salaries , pursuant to Order [1 July].
	 Main Question put:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 216.

Question accordingly negatived.

Members' Salaries (Expression of Opinion) (No. 2)

Motion made and Question put,
	That this House notes Sir John Baker's Review of Parliamentary Pay and Allowances (Cm 7416), and is of the opinion that the policy set out in the Written Ministerial Statement by the Leader of the House of 17th June Official Report col. 46WS should be implemented, such that—
	(1) the salary of a Member of this House should be increased from 1st April 2008, and from 1st April of each subsequent year, by an uprating formula which increases the salary by a percentage equal to the median of relevant increases for the following public sector groups: senior military, holders of judicial office, very senior NHS managers, doctors and dentists, the Prison Service, NHS staff, school teachers, the Armed Forces, police officers, Local Government; non-Senior Civil Service staff in each of the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office; and the Senior Civil Service;
	(2) the SSRB should conduct a review of Members' salaries in the first year of each new Parliament unless such a review has taken place within the preceding two years;
	(3) at such a review the SSRB should consider either or both of:
	(a) an adjustment to the salary, consistent with public sector pay policy, to reflect an assessment of the appropriate salary at that time relative to jobs of similar weight elsewhere in the public sector;
	(b) as regards the public sector groups listed above, such amendments to the list as appear to it to be necessary to reflect changes in the pay setting arrangements for those groups; to take effect from the first 1st April following the first meeting of the new Parliament; 2754 Order of Business: 3rd July 2008 No. 122
	(4) each year the SSRB chair should notify the Speaker of the change in salary (expressed as a percentage) and, on such notification to the Speaker, that change shall have effect, subject to any further notification given following a review under paragraph (2);
	(5) the Speaker should lay before the House:
	(a) any notification received from the SSRB chair under paragraph (4); and
	(b) any report from the SSRB following a review under paragraph (2) above;
	(6) an additional salary payable to a Member under Resolutions of this House in respect of service as a chairman of select or general committees shall be changed by the same percentage and from the same time as the salary of a Member. —[Ms Harman.]

Mr. Speaker: If no Tellers are put in, that is a indication that the vote is by acclaim. I shall call in Tellers, which will not take me a minute.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government had better put in Tellers, or else they will lose the vote.

Mr. Speaker: Thanks for that advice. That is very good of you.
	 The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
	 Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: We come to Members' Salaries (Expression of Opinion) (No. 3)— [ Interruption. ] Let us get this clear.

Harriet Harman: Mr. Speaker, the third expression of opinion motion would put into effect Sir John Baker's three-year £650 catch-ups. I have placed it on the Order Paper for the convenience of the House, and am prepared to move it formally, but if I do so, we will then be voting no—[Hon. Members: "You will."] I will be voting no.

Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question on this motion. How hon. Members vote is nothing to do with me.

Members' Salaries (Expression of Opinion) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question  put,
	That this House notes Sir John Baker's Review of Parliamentary Pay and Allowances (Cm 7416), and is of the opinion that the recommendation in paragraph 51 of the Review for increases over three years additional to those resulting from other uprating provisions should be implemented, such that the annual salary of a Member 5 of this House should be increased on each of 1st April 2008, 1st April 2009 and 1st April 2010 by a sum of £650 in addition to (and after) any other change taking effect from that date by virtue of any other resolution of this House. —[Ms Harman.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 224.

Question accordingly negatived.

MEMBERS' SALARIES (No. 2)  [MONEY]

Her Majesty's recommendation having been signified to the proposed motion —
	 Resolved,
	That the following provision be made in relation to the salaries of Members of this House—
	(1) from 1st April 2008 and from 1st April of each subsequent year a Member's salary shall be increased by a percentage equal to the median of the relevant increases for the public sector groups listed in paragraph (2);
	(2) the public sector groups are:
	(a) senior military, holders of judicial office, very senior NHS managers, doctors and dentists, the Prison Service, NHS staff, school teachers, the Armed Forces, police officers and Local Government ("List A");
	(b) non-Senior Civil Service staff in each of the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office ("List B");
	(c) Senior Civil Service ("List C");
	(3) the posts covered by a group in List A (except police officers and Local Government) and the Senior Civil Service are those posts within the group which are covered (from time to time) by a pay review body supported by the Office of Manpower Economics;
	(4) the reference to police officers is to those officers covered (from time to time) by the Police Negotiating Board and the reference to Local Government is to those posts covered (from time to time) by the National Joint Council for Local Government Services;
	(5) in the case of List A, the relevant increase for a group is determined as follows:
	(a) determine the last set of annual percentage pay scale increases finalised and given effect to prior to 31st December of the preceding year in relation to individuals within the group;
	(b) of the increases determined under paragraph (a), determine the increase that was applicable to the largest number of individuals (for this purpose, taking increases of the same percentage together as if they were one increase);
	and the increase determined under paragraph (b) is the relevant increase;
	(6) in the case of List B, the relevant increase for a group is determined as follows:
	(a) determine the last set of annual percentage pay scale increases finalised and given effect to prior to 31st December of the preceding year in relation to staff within the group;
	(b) determine the average of the increases determined under paragraph (a);
	and the average determined under paragraph (b) is the relevant increase;
	(7) in the case of List C, the relevant increase is the last annual percentage increase in the basic settlement (excluding recyclables) finalised and given effect to prior to 31st December of the preceding year;
	(8) the SSRB shall determine each relevant increase for the purposes of paragraph (1) except where the SSRB decides, in relation to a particular group, that it is not possible for it to make such a determination because of changes in pay setting arrangements for that group or other exceptional circumstances, in which case that group shall be ignored for the purposes of paragraph (1);
	(9) the SSRB shall conduct a review of Members' salaries in the first year of each new Parliament unless such a review has taken place within the preceding two years;
	(10) at such a review the SSRB should consider either or both of:
	(a) an adjustment to the salary, consistent with public sector pay policy, to reflect an assessment of the appropriate salary at that time relative to jobs of similar weight elsewhere in the public sector;
	(b) as regards the public sector groups listed in paragraph (2) above, such amendments to the list (including adding new groups or moving particular groups between Lists A, B and C) as appear to it to be necessary to reflect changes in the pay setting arrangements for those groups;
	to take effect from the first 1st April following the first meeting of the new Parliament;
	(11) each year the SSRB chair shall notify the Speaker of the change in salary (expressed as a percentage) and, on such notification to the Speaker, that change shall have effect, subject to any further notification given following a review under paragraph (9);
	(12) the Speaker shall lay before the House:
	(a) any notification received from the SSRB chair under paragraph (11); and
	(b) any report from the SSRB following a review under paragraph (9) above;
	(13) an additional salary payable to a Member under Resolutions of this House in respect of service as a chairman of select or general committees shall be changed by the same percentage and from the same time as the salary of a Member.— [Ms Harman.]

Members' Expenses

Nick Harvey: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the Third Report from the Members Estimate Committee: Review of Members Allowances (House of Commons Paper 578); endorses in particular the recognition of the need for a robust system of scrutiny for parliamentary allowances and the accompanying emphasis in the Report on improved audit; and is of the opinion that—
	(1) Recommendations 1-5 (audit and assurance), Recommendations 6 and 7 (scope of overnight expenses), Recommendations 9 and 10 (Communications Allowance), Recommendations 11 and 12 (travel), Recommendations 13 and 14 (overnight expenses), Recommendation 15 (resettlement), and Recommendations 16-18 (other SSRB recommendations) should be implemented, subject to decisions of the Members Estimate Committee with respect to their introduction and application;
	(2) the principle of central funding of constituency office costs, as set out in Recommendation 8, should be approved and asks the Members Estimate Committee to prepare a detailed proposal accordingly;
	(3) the timetable for implementation of the Recommendations set out in paragraph 257 of the Report be endorsed; and instructs the Members Estimate Committee to report from time to time on the implementation of this Resolution.
	The motion invites the House to approve the recommendations made in the report on Members' allowances produced by the Members Estimate Committee. It has been just over five long months since the House instructed the Committee on 24 January to consider the recommendations in the Senior Salaries Review Body's July 2007 report on Members' allowances. Members will recall that, no sooner had that instruction been given than the House was plunged into controversy following the irregularities in staffing practices of one hon. Member, the atmosphere that that created, and the judgments made by the freedom of information tribunal shortly thereafter.
	It was decided at that point that the review being conducted by the Members Estimate Committee should be a more thorough review, that it should look at every aspect of Members' allowances and that it should be a root and branch review. I am not necessarily suggesting that we have cut off every branch; that is for others to judge. The report runs to 271 paragraphs, and it follows that no one—not even all six members of the Members Estimate Committee—will think that all 271 of those paragraphs are perfect. The six members of the Committee have had to make compromises between ourselves in order to reach consensus.
	The task that we were set at the beginning of the review was to balance the interests of Members of Parliament with the interests of taxpayers. I do not need to tell Members that the impression created in the national media has not reflected well on this House as an institution or on its Members. The public believe—quite erroneously, in my view—that our allowances are excessive, that there are irregularities in the way in which Members claim those allowances and that the systems in this place are lax. I repeat that those are not my views, but that is the impression out there among the general public, and that is the context in which the Members Estimate Committee has conducted its investigations and the basis on which we have brought forward our recommendations.
	We have a clear need to restore the reputation of this House. Thus it is that our principal recommendation is that we need a more rigorous system of audit and assurance, possibly going rather further than the strict requirements that an audit would deem necessary. We need to do this in the interests of trying to restore public confidence in this House. The events of earlier this year have adversely changed people's impression of our arrangements for these allowances. Frankly, nothing will ever be quite the same again, not least because the freedom of information regime now means that we will publish, right down to receipt level, every claim that every Member makes against every allowance.
	Over the past five months, we have been grateful for oral, written, formal and informal comments from colleagues. As I have said, we cannot expect to make everyone happy, but we have done our best to take on board as many of those representations as we could. We are also grateful to the outsiders who have come in and given evidence and advice to us. They include the Comptroller and Auditor General in the National Audit Office, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, two firms of accountants, the Institute of Chartered Accountants' practice assurance experts, and our own officials within the House.
	When we published our report last week, we made it clear that tougher rules on the way in which we police our allowances were essential to putting right the problems that some people detect and the impression that abounds among the general public.

David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Harvey: I will just finish laying out the recommendations, then I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	Members of Parliament are unique in certifying their own expenses. The Committee was advised by all those who gave evidence to us that this is simply not a practice that takes place in other walks of life. Even the chief executive of a plc will have an expense claim certified by the chairman of the board. The belief that a Member's signature reflects the fact that a gentleman's word is his bond is, regrettably, not one that the rest of the country is prepared to put its faith in any longer. The proposed system of practice assurance will for the first time allow checks to be made against the basis on which Members have made their claims and the uses to which the resources they have claimed have been put.
	I encourage Members to read closely what is being suggested. We are not employees of this House but independent office holders. Our situation is comparable in many ways to that of professionals, whether as partners or in individual practices. The assurance system proposed in the report places us on a similar footing to professionals who practise either in partnership or as sole practitioners. Our intention is that there should be better record keeping and accounting and that if Members are doing anything at all irregular, they are more likely to be doing it through inadvertence than malfeasance.
	We thus view these proposals as a soft knock on the door and as a helpful advisory service to be provided by professionals trained to do this in other walks of life, who will come in to assist Members. I want to clear up at this point any suggestion that the proposed practice assurance model is intended to go any further than deal with Members' claims and their use of public money.

David Winnick: rose—

Ian Lucas: rose—

Nick Harvey: I will give way in a few moments.
	It has been suggested, for example, that the practice assurance teams might come in and start telling Members how to go about their political business, how they should be serving their constituents, how they should order their political priorities and so forth. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is targeted solely at how Members are making claims and the uses to which resources allocated to them from public funds are put. I hope that I have made that clear.

David Winnick: Let me turn back to what the hon. Gentleman was saying a little earlier about the lack of public confidence in the way we claim our allowances. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the manner in which the House of Commons Commission went to the High Court without any authorisation from the House whatever—there was no motion of any kind—is hardly likely to bolster public confidence in the system of allowances, much of which is absolutely justified?

Nick Harvey: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The principal argument advanced at the High Court was that Members' private addresses should not be put into the public arena, and Members will have an opportunity to express their opinions on that subject later in today's debate.

Ian Lucas: The hon. Gentleman has referred on a number of occasions to the phrase "practice assurance", which I believe is a deeply unfortunate one. He seems to be saying—will he confirm it—that the audit arrangements will extend only to financial assurance, not to practice assurance. Practice assurance goes way beyond audit and financial assurance. Does he agree that a much better, more accurate and less ambiguous description would be "financial assurance", and will he use that term from now on?

Nick Harvey: Let me confirm that it is the financial practice, not the political practice, that the assurance team will be coming round to check, but I would not be satisfied to call it simply "financial assurance" for this reason: the scandal that I mentioned earlier related to the employment and use of staff. With respect, that went a little wider than just financial matters, but in no sense whatever would the assurance teams involve themselves in matters of political practice, which are entirely a matter for Members' judgments. We are talking about the usage of considerable sums of public money—and nothing else.

David Clelland: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much all this will cost and how much it will save?

Nick Harvey: How much it will save time alone will tell. I hope that it will save and improve the reputation of the House and improve the quality of British democracy. If it does that and if in a couple of years we have convinced people that any problems that there were are being ironed out, it will have been worth it. The question of how much it costs will depend on terms of contracts that we let, what people bid in at and what scale of work is done. Some estimates are included in the appendices—

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Harvey: I will press on, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, so that more Members get the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
	The purpose of introducing the principle of practice assurance is to put Members of Parliament on the same footing and the same basis as other members of the professions and others in other walks of life. One thing that we were asked to do at the outset of the process was to examine practice elsewhere and ensure that the practice of Members of Parliament was analogous to that of those in other professions. A mindset that Members of Parliament are in some separate world of their own and that different rules apply to us than to everybody else has got the House into the sort of trouble that we have at the moment.

Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Harvey: I will press on. Introducing this system of practice assurance is intended to put us on the same footing as other professionals in other walks of life.
	The rules of engagement will be drawn up by Members of Parliament. The rules against which our practice is judged will be drawn up by Members of Parliament. The contract with the professionals who carry this out will be set by Members of Parliament. The House will still have domain over its own rules and regulations and the practices that it puts in place to police them. This is not something being imposed from outwith, but we are using the expertise of professionals in other walks of life so that they can come in and ensure that we are adopting best practice in 2008.

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman will accept that outside the House proportionality applies. Therefore, will he explain to the House how much this system will cost and how much he expects to save for the money spent?

Nick Harvey: That question was asked a moment ago and I repeat what I said then. The objective of the exercise is to restore the reputation of the House and its Members. We cannot say how much it will save until we have tried the system and seen what it will save. What it will cost is laid out in the report and I invite the hon. Lady to have a look at it.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Harvey: No, I am going to make some progress.
	The second part of this is the question of formal financial audit. Our proposals involve the National Audit Office extending the scope of its audit of the House accounts and bringing it up to the general standards of the public sector. The NAO will continue its practice of sampling transactions and systems, but it is not the role of the external audit of our accounts to test the behaviour of Members. For the first time, the NAO will have the power to look behind the Member's signature, and it has also indicated to us that reducing the receipt threshold will enable it to give assurance on the House's accounts on a comparable basis to that which it offers on the accounts of other public sector bodies.
	An amendment has been tabled that would knock that provision out. I invite the House to consider that carefully. We have before us a recommendation that would put the audit of the House accounts on the same basis as that of other public bodies. If we vote it down, we will knowingly vote to have our accounts on a less adequate basis than those of the rest of the public sector. In my view, and in the light of the challenges that we have experienced to the reputation of the House, it would be utterly catastrophic for us to do that knowingly and having taken advice from the NAO.

Patrick Cormack: I go along with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, and as a former member of the Commission and of the Members Estimate Committee I understand the difficulties of his task. I am grateful to him and his colleagues. I can understand the £25 threshold, but I am told by people in the House's own accounts department that requiring a receipt for everything—be it £1, £2 or 7s/3d—will cause enormous and disproportionate cost. Why was that recommendation made?

Nick Harvey: On 1 April, the receipt threshold was reduced from £250 to £25. That change has involved a far greater adjustment of the administrative load than the further—quite small—reduction from £25 to zero.
	When we made that change, it was I who was sent to the media studios. The interviewers did not say, "This is entirely commendable. The House of Commons has reduced its receipt threshold from £250 to £25." The first question on the lips of every interviewer was, "Why are you sticking at this £25 threshold when the rest of the world expects receipts for everything?"  [Interruption.] According to the evidence that we have been given, that is the case in many other walks of life.
	There is a £30-a-day subsistence allowance for Members, also based on the practice that we have observed in other professions—the civil service, for example. We do not expect receipts for that. It is a small sum, and the way in which Members use it is at their discretion. Members have complained that they would not be able to get a receipt for the purchase of a newspaper or a cup of coffee. Those are exactly the sort of purchases for which the £30 daily subsistence rate is meant to provide. It is true that the receipt threshold is going down to zero for most purposes, but a small amount is still left to the discretion of Members.

Stephen Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Harvey: I will, but then I must make a little progress.

Stephen Hammond: I entirely support what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, but those in almost every other walk of life must submit a receipt for almost every item of expenditure. Can he explain the rationale for a £30 daily subsistence which will not involve receipts, and can he also explain why it is not being given to all Members of Parliament?

Nick Harvey: The £30 subsistence allowance is based on the subsistence arrangements in other professions, which are recognised by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. HMRC does not allow people a tax-free subsistence rate unless they are staying away from home. I think the hon. Gentleman is asking me about those who have only one home. He will have noted our proposal to increase the London subsistence rate and make it a London costs allowance. If he works out what that will deliver to him, net of tax, he will find that it bears a close resemblance to the subsistence allowance that is on offer to other Members.

Simon Hughes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nick Harvey: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I shall try to finish my speech so that others can contribute.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I support the most robust of responses, which I think is what his Committee proposes. Can he tell us what is the difference between the proposal in his motion that the report
	"should be implemented, subject to decisions of the Members Estimate Committee with respect to their introduction and application"
	and the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), which appears to delay some changes until October this year, some until April next year, some until April 2010, and some until the end of the next Parliament? How soon will my hon. Friend's proposal be implemented? I want it to be implemented tomorrow, if that is possible.

Nick Harvey: I do not think it is possible to introduce such systems in the middle of a financial year. I believe that the earliest point at which we can implement most of them is 1 April next year, and that some of the more complex arrangements will take a little longer than that.
	I have seen my hon. Friend's amendment asking for the proposal for central procurement for constituency offices to be brought forward, and inviting the Members Estimate Committee to produce a comprehensive plan before 22 July. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I must tell him that that is simply not possible. We are very keen for the system to be sound and reliable, and over the next year or 18 months, during which time some Members' leases will expire, we will seek opportunities to pilot the new system so that we can get it right for the majority of Members. That will take a little time.
	My hon. Friend invites me to contrast the arrangements proposed in our report with what is proposed in the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). As I said earlier, it is impossible to please all the people all the time, and I do not believe that any one of the six members of the Committee is entirely happy with every last detail of the report. However, we have to decide collectively what is in our best interests. The problem with the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Islwyn is that it helps itself to the spoonful of sugar, but declines to take the medicine. The package that the report proposes was meant to be just that—a package, some aspects of which are to the advantage of Members, but in a context of there being greater controls that are more visible so that the public can see them and therefore understand. If we help ourselves to the goodies but decline to take the medicine, the danger is that any progress that we are making in improving public perceptions of our practice and in improving the reputation of the House will be fundamentally undone. That is the danger if we take the sugar but do not take the medicine.

Don Touhig: Let me tell the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that the dates in the amendment I have tabled have not been made up, but that they are taken from the Members Estimate Committee report, so there is no difference between us as far as that is concerned. I hope that reassures him.
	The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) says the amendment would lead to our taking the spoonful of sugar, but not the medicine. That is a very lyrical turn of phrase, but will he tell us why the main thrust of this report involves an audit system that is uncosted? I sit on the Public Accounts Committee, and I am sure that this will cost the taxpayer millions. Does not the Members Estimate Committee have a responsibility not to waste public money?

Nick Harvey: It is not true to say that it is uncosted. We have explained in the report the possible range of costs, but in any event the cost of this system will be less than 0.5 per cent. of the Members' estimates. Surely a sum of less than 0.5 per cent. of the total cost of the allowances Members are drawing is a price worth paying for the purpose of trying to restore the reputation of this House?
	Members will have seen over the course of the past week the media reaction to this report, and they will have seen in particular the response from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It is perfectly clear to me that if the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman is passed, any sense that we are putting our house in order—that we will have transparent systems of financial control that the rest of the world will recognise and respect—will be undone, and in no time at all Sir Christopher Kelly and his standards committee will be conducting their own separate inquiry, which they have thus far concluded they do not feel they need to conduct.
	The right hon. Gentleman accuses me of being lyrical, but I believe that what I say about his amendment is accurate. It will go along with central procurement for constituency offices, which will cost a lot of money, and it happily cashes in on the fact that we are not suggesting reducing the value of the incidental expenses provision, as was suggested by the Senior Salaries Review Body. However, when we suggest having a light-touch system of financial control to try to restore the reputation of the House and faith in the systems we have, he does not want to take that fairly light and sweet medicine.

Don Touhig: Is it not a fact that it will cost £1,200 a day to bring in fat cats from the City accountancy firms to spend three days a year going around examining Members' office cost allowances? The hon. Gentleman is like Ethelred the Unready: pay them gold and they will run away. That is what he is trying to do: he is trying get rid of a bad headline by throwing public money at it, and thereby wasting that money.

Nick Harvey: The comment about being lyrical could be employed there, too. The proposals include measures that are intended to try to improve the reputation of the House, and we believe that they constitute a balanced package. I know that some Members are unhappy that we are getting rid of the so-called "John Lewis list"— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow the hon. Gentleman to speak.

Nick Harvey: Let me rephrase my point, Mr. Speaker. There are those who are upset that the report recommends that Members ought not in future to be allowed to purchase items with their additional costs allowance. I think that they will have the devil's own job if we continue with the existing system. In an era when freedom of information requires every receipt to be perused by the public, they would have a difficulty in justifying the purchase of televisions, fridges, three-piece suites, curtains, carpets and whatever else. Every time that Members make any such purchase, it will not only be for the individual Member to defend it to his local paper; the reputation of the House and the impression given of us all will be demeaned by the process of that information coming out and being debated and haggled over in the public press.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nick Harvey: I give way, for the last time, to the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood).

Jimmy Hood: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Did his Committee at any time consider the Member of Parliament who has to spend thousands of pounds out of his or her own pocket, and then gets into trouble and criticised for trying to claim it back? Is not a better way to have fewer receipts and a system of audit and accounting, in which MPs do not have to spend as much of their own money? Let me give an example. I was away on NATO assembly duty last week and had to pay $1,500 out of my own pocket just to be on duty. That is outrageous, and this House should be looking at what it can do to help Members, so that they are not laying out their own money and having to claim it back.

Nick Harvey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. A number of Members did make the point to us during our consultations that, across all the allowances, they end up having to shell out quite a lot of money up front and that it takes some time to get it back. I am very sympathetic to what he says and we continue to look at that as a live issue. I am sorry that we have not found a solution at this time, but we have absolutely logged the problem and we continue to explore ways of assisting with that.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nick Harvey: I have been speaking for a lot of this 90-minute debate, and I think it right that I shortly allow other Members to speak.
	I commend the report, which provides a balanced package. We bring in for the first time systems that the rest of the world would recognise. We are not intending to string up at the scaffold every Member who is found to have had the smallest administrative mishap. There will be a balanced approach. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who intervened on me earlier, said that things need to be proportionate and that is exactly what we intend them to be. Clearly, as we work our way through this system and as it matures, we will find a way of dealing with these matters that is fair to Members. The rules will be set by Members; the terms of engagement for those coming in to do the studies will be set by Members; the findings of those assurance teams will be reported to Members; and only if it is felt that something is of so severe a nature that it reflects on the standards will it be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Standards and Privileges Committee.
	However, everybody involved in this—the Standards and Privileges Committee, the commissioner, the Members Estimate Audit Committee and the practice assurance teams—will have to work out together how we are going to deal with these matters in a proportionate and graded way. I do not think that any Member will have anything to fear from this system. On the contrary, they will find it helpful, and within a short time we could have made substantial progress toward restoring the reputation of this House. However, if we do not take this step today and we vote through the amendment, we will be absolutely back to where we were in the dark days of January and February, and back to the sort of media coverage and public hostility that was being expressed towards this House.

Harriet Harman: I want to speak briefly in support of the motion on Members' home addresses, standing in my name. I have made my position clear on many occasions in this House and I have not changed my view. To do our job properly, we have to be able to speak freely in this House—without fear or favour. We must be able to say what we believe to be true about controversial issues, without feeling that to do so would put ourselves or our families at risk. If our addresses are published on the House of Commons website, it will inevitably result in some Members being inhibited about what they say in the House. If Members want to publish their own addresses, that is a matter for them, but I advise against it, for the same reason that I believe that it should not be required for the House authorities to put our addresses in the public domain.

Norman Baker: The Leader of the House will know that I have campaigned on the issues of MPs' expenses and freedom of information, but it is perfectly possible to campaign for freedom of information and support the point that she is making. It is important that MPs have confidence that they will not be subject to improper and perhaps irregular approaches by members of the public. Keeping MPs' addresses confidential is important to that.

Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. He is absolutely right: the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was never intended to put anybody's security at risk or inhibit the democracy of this House.

Patrick Cormack: Many of us who are concerned about this matter—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who has played such a prominent part in the campaign—are concerned not so much for ourselves as for our families. Frequently, a wife, husband or partner is at home alone when a Member is here. If addresses are published, that can be an invitation to ne'er-do-wells.

Harriet Harman: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for the work that he has done. I know that, like me, he believes that the problem is about not just current threats but those in future, either to an individual Member—whether a threat from what is described as a fixated individual or a threat to their involvement in a controversial issue—or to all Members from circumstances that pose new and unforeseen dangers. That could be a new terrorist threat focusing on Parliament.
	Once someone's address is a matter of public information, they cannot make it private without moving. I have had the opportunity to have discussions with the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), and with the House's security co-ordinator. I thank them both for their important work and their advice to me as Leader of the House. The security co-ordinator takes the view that it would be a risk to put in the public domain our addresses, or anything that would lead to the identification of our addresses, such as our travel plans.
	This is also about the security of Members' families, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said, and the security of the public. The publication of our addresses would put at greater risk those who happen to live in the same block of flats as a Member.

Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend refers to information in the public domain. Would that include, for example, the address of a locksmith or glazier, whose receipts would be published as part of our general submissions and could give people the information that they need to get access to the property or constituency office of an MP for bad purposes?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we will take the advice of the security co-ordinator about all the issues that could lead to hon. Members' addresses being identified.

Bob Spink: Does the Leader of the House accept that we are not dealing with some theoretical threat? There are Members who have suffered from fixated individuals following them and seeking to interrupt their travel patterns. In fact, certain individuals have subsequently gone into mental institutions to be treated, having received two police harassment warnings after civil injunctions have failed to work. We are dealing with not a theoretical threat but an actual one to Members and their families.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I absolutely agree with him.
	On the security of the public, I have mentioned members of the public who live in the same blocks of flats as Members. A further point is that the publication of our addresses would inevitably mean more incidents at our homes, which would mean more police tied up with the task of protecting us. I felt that very strongly when about 12 police had to be around my home, instead of policing in my constituency, when Fathers 4 Justice campaigners were on my roof.
	Having discussed the matter with the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers, I can tell the House that the Government intend to introduce a statutory instrument under section 7(3) of the Freedom of Information Act, which will exclude Members' addresses or any material that could lead to the identification of Members' address. We will bring it before Members on the Floor of the House before the House rises for the summer recess.

Stephen Pound: For those of us who are slow learners, can my right hon. and learned Friend clarify a point for me? Some of us do not claim for a second home and our only home address is always printed at the start of every election campaign, despite the risk of ne'er-do-wells. Will our home addresses no longer be published or does this apply only to those who claim for a second home?

Harriet Harman: I am referring to a statutory instrument that would introduce an exclusion from the freedom of information legislation for the information that the House authorities hold on Members. The House authorities hold information about addresses beyond claims of additional costs allowances, because they hold information on destination of travel for Members. All that information about Members' addresses would need to be considered for exclusion.

Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Harriet Harman: I wish to press on, because I know that many hon. Members want to speak on these issues.
	If I may, I shall now turn to the motion moved by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). The Government do not take an official position on the proposals in the MEC report, which is a matter for the House rather than the Government. However, it is right and necessary to have strengthened and independent audit of our expenditure on our offices, travel and accommodation, and that will be a necessary step in regaining the public confidence that has been so severely dented by the disgraceful actions of a tiny minority of Members. I will support the motion standing in the hon. Gentleman's name and reject the amendments.
	I also wish to place on record my thanks to the hon. Gentleman and to the other two members of the MEC three. They have received little thanks in the House, but I wish to thank them for the dedicated work that they have done on behalf of us all.

Theresa May: We had an important debate earlier on the future determination of MPs' pay, but this debate is every bit as important. Indeed, in relation to the need to show that hon. Members recognise the depth of concern outside this House, not only about the use of taxpayers' money, but the relationship of practices here to those in the outside world, this debate is in fact the more important.
	Before I go into more detail, I wish to pay tribute, as the Leader of the House has just done, to the work of the group that came to be known as the MEC three—the hon. Members for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean). Theirs has not been an easy task, but they have put in many hours of work on behalf not only of the members of the MEC, but of all hon. Members.
	The debate is important for the following reasons. We all know that to do our jobs we need budgets to meet our office costs. There are probably as many structures as there are MPs, because we all do things differently. Our constituencies are different, and no one model can be imposed on us all. It is also right that we are able to claim for costs incurred for working away from home as would happen in any other field of employment. But the approach that has been taken by MPs to the use of taxpayers' money for expenses and allowances has over the years been seen by taxpayers to be secretive and to fail to follow best practice.
	Above all, Parliament has been seen as failing to recognise that life has changed. Outside this place, in any other business, compliance is the order of the day. We have appeared to be willing to require others to do that which we are not prepared to accept for ourselves. Crucial to that is the issue of audit.
	I chair the Audit Committee, which, under various Chairmen, has pressed for proper audit of MPs' claims since 2004, as the MEC report states in paragraph 27. In what other walk of life would it have been possible regularly to claim expenses for £250 a time without a receipt? In short, we have been seriously out of touch and careless of our duty to taxpayers. Members, before they vote on the issue, should have a care and consider the damage that that has done to the House.
	We can argue about the media's role. They certainly have a lot to answer for, but frankly so do we. The reputation of the House has been damaged and today we have a duty to put in place the changes necessary to restore confidence in Parliament and in MPs' use of taxpayers' money and to make this institution fit for the 21st century. There are two areas where people have particularly found us to be out of touch. One is audit and the other is transparency. Transparency has been resolved following the High Court judgment. All Members' claims will be published with receipts later this year. That will, of course, be of some cost to the House but I believe that it is right to embrace that transparency. It will be an important means of showing taxpayers that their money is being properly spent. The only exception to transparency is the issue of addresses, which I shall touch on later.
	On transparency, the official Opposition have already introduced a right-to-know form for Front Benchers. It reflects my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's strong support for transparency, which he has made clear in a number of public statements. I said that there were two areas in which people feel that we are out of touch. One is transparency and the other is audit. I want to refer to the Members Estimate Audit Committee paper, which is published in the MEC report. On the governance framework, it makes the point that
	"the media and public perception of Members' actions and motives in this area is very poor. This perception has two main components, namely an apparent failure (i) by Members to lead by example; and (ii) by the House to achieve recognised minimum public service standards of accountability by installing adequate checks and balances."
	I believe that the paragraphs and proposals in the report on audit and assurance are important, if not the most important, parts of the MEC report.
	Traditionally, the view was taken that a Member's signature was sufficient for a claim and there should be no need for any proof. Today we live in a different age. That is not to say that we are not honourable Members, but we must accept that today in all walks of life people are required to be scrutinised and checked in their use of finances in a way that never used to be the case years ago. We cannot ignore that and we must be willing to accept for ourselves the same sort of regime as we expect others to adopt.
	We must also not forget that the traditional practices are not good enough for the people we serve. We must be willing to institute procedures that are modern, clear and without room for interpretation.

John Spellar: The right hon. Lady might be due to come on to this, but is she giving any account to the concept of proportionality? Given the amount that is fixed in what we pay, for example in our offices—the vast bulk goes on salaries—does she think that three days with an auditor from PricewaterhouseCoopers at £1,200 a day crawling all over our constituency offices is a proportionate response or good value for money?

Theresa May: I believe that the proportionate response that is needed from this House is the restoration of its reputation and that is what the MEC report provides. That is why I believe that it is important that when hon. Members vote today they should recognise the need to think not just about our individual situations but about the damage that has been done to this House by our failure to adopt best practice in those areas before now. We need to show taxpayers that we have understood the depth of people's concerns and have been willing to respond, to get a grip on the problem and to sort it out. As the report says in its conclusions and recommendations:
	"Our over-riding conclusion is that we must introduce a robust system of scrutiny for parliamentary allowances as a matter of urgency in order to build public confidence."

Tom Levitt: The right hon. Lady has talked about transparency and good practice. Is it not worth putting it on the record that Members of the House did not even know of the existence of the John Lewis list until a few months ago, so that it was not possible for us to be transparent or to show best practice?

Theresa May: I certainly accept that, as the hon. Gentleman says, many—in fact, most—Members of the House did not know of the existence of the John Lewis list before the story appeared in the newspapers; it is worth putting that on the record. That does not change my view that we should effectively abolish the John Lewis list by taking away the right to claim for items that appear on it, including furniture and fridges.
	The MEC report proposes two levels of assurance. One of them is what has been referred to as practice assurance. I noted what the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said about how the term could be misinterpreted. It is important that the hon. Member for North Devon, who speaks on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, and I, as a member of the Commission, make it clear that the intention is to provide assurance about the financial arrangements for claiming taxpayers' money from the House. There is a difference between that assurance and audit. The practice assurance is as much about advice, help and support for Members as about scrutiny and checking on Members. The service will not only help Members to ensure that they properly understand what can be claimed through the green book, but help them to improve their record-keeping and their claims processes. Audit, on the other hand, is about scrutiny.

Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, but I would be even more grateful if she made one thing plain. When I first came to the House, there were no allowances for any of the things that we are discussing, and one had to provide everything for oneself. However, many hon. Members have come to the House since the allowances were available. There has been a fixed sum beyond which they could not claim, and the sum had to cover their rent. I know that many members of the shadow Cabinet made legitimate claims for furnishings when they were first elected to the House. Please may we move away from any insinuation that the behaviour of the vast majority of Members has been anything other than entirely proper?

Theresa May: If my hon. Friend took my words as such an insinuation, then they were not what I intended. As I mentioned earlier, I am not saying that we are not honourable Members. However, our failure to recognise the concern outside this House about our processes, and the failure to recognise that people expect us to adopt the best practice that has been adopted elsewhere in the public and private sectors, has led to cynicism and damage to the reputation of the House, and we need to address that.
	Over the years, Members of this House have claimed according to the rules that existed at the time, but the rules have changed. An important element of the process is ensuring that when we adapt the green book, Members are fully aware of, and are given proper advice by the Fees Office on, the rules that are in place.

Michael Jabez Foster: As the right hon. Lady says, the rules have changed; the broad-brush approach is no longer acceptable and every penny must be identified. However, Members spend large sums of money that do not count as recoverable expenditure, and will now do so to an even greater extent. Does she agree that that means that we should also look into the way in which Members are taxed? Perhaps they should be taxed as small businesses, rather than as employees, as they are at present.

Theresa May: I know that the hon. Gentleman has tabled amendments on the issue, but I can only say that I would resist the temptation to go down the route of discussing MPs' tax status. That would lead us into a whole other set of debates. We are talking about the processes that the House adopts for claims that we Members of Parliament make.
	I accept the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood) about the problem of sometimes having to wait a considerable time for claims to be met. The best option would be to be able to invoice the Fees Office directly, and for it to pay Members directly, rather than Members having to pay out themselves; but for many expenses, such as those covered by the additional costs allowance, that is not always possible.

Clive Betts: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

Clive Betts: Will the right hon. Lady make it absolutely clear to the House whether it is essential to have both the extra external audit and the extra assurance process? Surely that will mean significant costs as a result of external auditors being brought in, and extra staff in the finance department so that the assurance people can do their work. Extra staff are already needed because of the pressures resulting from reducing the receipts level to £25, and extra staff will be needed when the level is reduced to zero. In addition, MPs' office staff will spend extra time on the issues. Are those not all considerable costs, and could we not make do with just one of the elements?

Theresa May: I believe that we need both, because they are different—as I have been trying to explain. I shall come on to the point about audit in a moment, but financial practice assurance is about giving support and advice to Members of Parliament as well as checking what they do. It is not just about claims: it is about best practice, and encouraging Members of Parliament to adopt best practice in their offices.
	Audit is about checking and scrutiny, and making sure that MPs submit correct claims. Random audit by an external auditor—and the NAO's reputation inspires confidence in people outside the House—would give the public confidence that money was being spent properly. As the hon. Member for North Devon said, it would also put the House on the same basis as other public sector bodies.
	Checking and scrutiny are extremely important and introducing them would—crucially—incorporate best practice in the House. I refer to the letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). It states:
	"In particular we were pleased to see the proposals for a more robust system of audit and assurance, based for the most part on claims backed by receipts, and by the implied acceptance of complete transparency about what is claimed...these seem to us to be significant steps towards the establishment of the robust regime that MPs and the taxpayer have the right to expect."
	I agree with Sir Christopher Kelly: our responsibility as Members is not to think only about our personal interests, but to think about the House and to do what is necessary to restore trust in it. Amendment (d), in the name of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), proposes a reduced level of assurance and does not incorporate external scrutiny. That is why I believe that it does not go as far as is necessary to ensure that we provide confidence and trust for members of the public. Voting in favour of that amendment, or against the main motion, would be to say to people outside the House that we do not accept that they are concerned, and that we are not prepared to take the steps necessary to improve the House's reputation. If we sent out that message, we would tarnish the House's reputation further. As the hon. Member for North Devon said, that would be catastrophic. Today is our opportunity to restore faith in the House.
	I just want to say something about the ACA proposals. The MEC looked at three options, but I have never left my personal view in doubt, having said in public several times that my preference would be to abolish the ACA and incorporate it in salary. However, I know that that will not satisfy the House's requirements today.
	I do not approve of per diem expenses, and that is why I am pleased that the £140-a-day option was not the one preferred by the MEC. I remain concerned—as, I know, does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—about the element of per diem expenses incorporated in the ACA proposals, as that would mean that some money would be claimed for which there was no transparency.
	However, the overall benefits of the MEC report package outweigh that concern. The proposals would tighten up how claims are made, introduce necessary audit procedures and bring the House's business and procedures in line with best practice elsewhere.
	I fully support the Leader of the House's proposals on MPs' addresses. They are important for us, but also for those members of the public who reside in blocks of flats where MPs also live. They might feel that they would be a target if the addresses of MPs in one block were published.
	This House has a very important decision to take today. We have the opportunity to start the process of restoring confidence in Members and the processes of the House. We can put our heads above the parapet and say, "We understand the degree of concern that exists outside this House, and we are willing to take the necessary action." I hope that the House will therefore support the motion in the name of the MEC.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Simon Hughes, but before I do so, may I say that the Back Benchers have not been able to get in? I set a limit of eight minutes, but I am putting that limit down to six minutes so that I can at least get some Back Benchers in.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for that, Mr. Speaker. I shall respect that timetable as well.
	I support with enthusiasm the proposal from the Members Estimate Committee, and I hope that the House listens very clearly to the warnings that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) gave, because unless we are robust on the issue, and unless the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) is defeated, we will undermine all the work that people have been trying to do to ensure that we are seen to be absolutely transparent in our practices. It is completely unacceptable to propose, as the amendment does, an audit only for the additional costs allowance, rather than a full audit of all that we do with public money. It is completely unacceptable, and if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues win the vote, it will be a shameful day. I hope that colleagues—

Clive Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: No, I will not give way, because I said that I would restrict my contribution to six minutes.
	I hope that colleagues are absolutely clear about the need to turn over the page and introduce a transparent system with proper auditing, so that everybody here is affected and everybody out there knows that we have our expenses policed in the same way as everybody else who is in public service and in the public pay. I pray in aid—if I needed to—the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, who has been very clear that he and his colleagues will, as they should, keep on watching what we do. He has also made it clear that if we accept the proposals, it will be a good starting point but nothing more, and that watering them down will not do.
	The proposals on properly managed arrangements for constituency offices are welcome, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon by way of my amendment, which I shall not press to a vote, the arrangements need to start as soon as possible. I am grateful for his assurance in respect of that. The separate mileage allowance proposal, which will entitle Members with large and sparsely populated constituencies to more than Members, such as me, with smaller constituencies, is also welcome.
	The proposal to change the additional costs allowance is a good one. It will provide a cash sum of up to £19,000 for a second, London home for non-London MPs, and they will be able to do what they want with the money. It rightfully does not include furnishings and all the other stuff; it is a sum of money, and colleagues can decide how to spend it. That is the way other people are reimbursed when they have to work away from home, and that is how colleagues in this place should be reimbursed.
	It is also right that we end the absolutely disgraceful way in which, under the current arrangements, colleagues from outer London have been able to take full advantage not only of their own home, but of a second home at the same rate, even though in some cases they have lived only a matter of 20, 30 or 45 minutes away from here. We have to be very clear about those things.
	I have two final points. First, it seems right that travel allowances should be tightened further and given only to spouses or civil partners, rather than to other people in a relationship. That seems to be right and good, and we have to be tough about it. Secondly, on the point about addresses, I think that I am in as good a position as anybody to comment on the risks that people have to live with. I have lived under police protection, as have other colleagues, but the proposal to hide one's home address is a complete nonsense. The reality is that one stands for election as a public representative, one knows the risks when standing and declares one's address on the ballot paper.

Ann Widdecombe: rose—

Helen Jones: rose—

Simon Hughes: No, I will not give way.
	The only exception—[ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that some Members disapprove of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he is entitled to be heard.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for that, Mr. Speaker.
	The only exception should be if one can demonstrate such threats that the electoral registration officer is persuaded to exclude one's name from the electoral register. Otherwise, we are all on the electoral register, anybody can find our constituency address and they should be able to do so. The only perfectly good and proper argument is that the addresses of colleagues' second, London homes, which they have when they work in Parliament, should not be a public matter, because they have nothing to do with their constituents. In the interests of security, those addresses should be protected.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Simon Hughes: I am not going to give way, simply because I said that I would be very brief.
	I am clear that many colleagues take a different view from mine. An order will come before the House to be voted on. I understand the threats under which people and their families live, but we need to err on the transparent and open side of the line. We are different from judges and other people. We are elected to be public servants accountable to our electorates, and the public should be absolutely aware of where our homes in our constituencies are, so that they can judge about where we live as well as know about us, the people whom they elect. The vote may not be won. It is less important than the other vote. However, I hope that the suggestion of a reduced audit is rejected, because introducing such an audit would be a catastrophically foolish and wrong decision.

Don Touhig: The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and I exchanged some barbed comments. That is perfectly normal in this House and in no way diminishes my respect for him and other members of the Members Estimate Committee, who have done a difficult job. I greatly admire what they have done. However, I hope that those of us who disagree with elements of the report are not going to be cast as people who are against reform or transparency.
	I cannot pay such a tribute to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). He can wear his hair shirt and be sanctimonious if he wants. As is typical of the activities throughout his political life, he thinks that there is a way of making smear some sort of progress in this House. Those of us who oppose some of the report are not anti-transparency or anti-reform.
	In tabling the amendment, I strongly support the introduction of a robust system of scrutiny for parliamentary allowances in order to rebuild public confidence. The Members Estimate Committee has made some excellent recommendations, which many on both sides want to be implemented. However, although I accept most of the recommendations and the spirit of the report as a whole, I have tabled the amendment, with the support of others, because of my experience on the Public Accounts Committee.
	Our amendment calls for 25 per cent. of Members' additional costs allowance claims each year to be audited and for the auditing of every Member's additional costs allowance every parliament. We are proposing a very thorough internal audit system performed by an in-house team set up on the model of the National Audit Office and working at arm's length from the House authorities, rather than by outside auditors from big City firms that would cost the taxpayer millions of pounds.
	My experience on the Public Accounts Committee has taught me that unless auditing is approached in the right way, it can incur such disproportionate cost that, far from safeguarding taxpayers' money, it undermines the purpose of the audit in the first place. The report proposes a system of assurance audit of Members' office cost allowances. That proposal is ill-thought out. From what the hon. Member for North Devon has said, it appears not to be properly costed. There is no evidence that it is needed.
	The lapses in standards that have besmirched the reputation of the House recently have all been to do with the operations of the additional costs allowance and salaries. I am not aware of any problems or failure of standards as far as the office costs allowance is concerned. If there were thought to be problems, we should have a report—and if problems were found, of course there should be a great deal of scrutiny and audit. I would support the recommendation on that basis. I stress that I am not opposed to the proposal; however, the Committee has given no grounds, made no proposals and given no information on how we can justify the spending of this vast amount of money.

Kevan Jones: When we attended the briefing from the Members Estimate Committee at lunch time, many of us were shocked to learn that despite what I thought were the rules—that we had to lodge contracts of employment and terms and conditions of employment with the Fees Office—87 Members refused to do so, and have been allowed to get away with it.

Don Touhig: My hon. Friend makes a good point; that is how the system is operating.
	If we accept all the recommendations of the report, as proposed by the hon. Member for North Devon, we will commit ourselves to employing hundreds of accountants who will travel Britain at great cost to the taxpayer, checking on whether a Member from the north of Scotland has spent too much on paper clips and on whether a Member from the south-west could have bought toilet paper for his office staff cheaper at the Co-op than he could at Tesco.
	Bringing in outside teams of auditors always sounds good, but it can be expensive and it undermines the objective of sensible spending. My colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee and I are forever upbraiding Government Departments for spending millions of pounds on consultants. Let us not make the same mistake. The Members Estimate Committee wrote to Sir John Baker on the separate issue of Members' salaries and stated that the pay issue had got out of all proportion to its real significance to the public purse. With the proposed audit, we are in danger of making the same thing happen. There is a great danger that if we make that mistake on Members' allowances by spending a disproportionate amount of money on external auditors, we will have a high cost to pay at the end of the day. What is needed is not outside auditors but the development of auditing expertise within this House so that we do not create waste when we need transparency and good use of public money. Let us involve the National Audit Office in helping us to set up our own internal audit system so that we do not spend more money on things that we cannot justify.
	The amendment that I have tabled, with the support of others, supports the continuation of the principle of the ACA to meet the necessary costs of MPs living away from home. I think that most fair-minded people would accept that the extraordinary situation of an MP needing to live both in his or her constituency and in London requires an allowance to support those costs.
	However, there is no getting away from the fact that the confidence of the public in Members has been severely damaged by press stories about allowances and expenditure. That is why I support most of the recommendations in the report, which present the House with an opportunity to bring about a system that is transparent and open to scrutiny. It is a chance for Members to demonstrate that they are serious about restoring public faith in Members of Parliament. We are charged in this debate with restoring public confidence in this House and in our political system. We all recognise, I think, that it is imperative to put in place a system with clear guidelines and spot checks, but we must get the right system. Of course, underlying any debate on reform of the ACA is the fact that we should be seen in this House to be exercising the same type of restraint that has been asked for from others in the public sector. For that reason, my amendment supports the freezing of the communications allowance and the introduction of restrictions on Members claiming for travel.
	At a time when public perception of politics and politicians is at an all-time low, the decisions that we make today will help to restore public faith in us. It is up to us to reaffirm that public service for its own sake is worth while and honourable. Given the way that the report has gone, I do not believe that we will currently be able to do that.

George Young: I want to contribute briefly to this debate because the Committee that I chair monitors the arrangements for allowances, and we therefore have an interest in the issues under discussion. I begin by thanking our three colleagues for the speed and efficiency with which they conducted their report. I broadly agree with the direction of travel, but there are some interface issues between the existing regimes and what is proposed that we need to tease out and to which I shall turn in a moment. Given the tight time scale and the complexity of the issues under debate, I can understand why this time it was not possible to involve a wider range of interests in the Committee's conclusions. If we go round the course again, it might be better to take slightly more time to resolve some of the issues that remain unresolved and to deal with some of the anxieties that have been expressed in this debate.
	My Committee supports proportionate measures that drive up standards and reduce the likelihood of colleagues falling foul of the rules. There is some evidence that over the years we have made significant progress in that regard. If one goes back a number of years, the principal causes of complaint were on matters such as the non-disclosure of interests and the acceptance of cash for activities such as questions and lobbying. Firm action by the House has dealt with those. More recently, the complaints have been about misuse of allowances, and they have formed a prominent part of my Committee's work. We need the same robust approach to deal with those. The communications allowance is proving a fertile ground for complaints given the inevitably fine and not always clear line between a Member's parliamentary and party political roles. I am glad that the MEC has accepted the implementation of my Committee's recommendations on the communications allowance. I hope that that will reduce the risk of Members facing complaints about their publications, and I strongly commend the case for seeking pre-clearance from the Resources Department.
	On accountability, we need to lead by example. Our arrangements should reflect best practice in the public and private sectors. That does not mean a hair shirt approach, but it does mean systems that are open and transparent about what we are reimbursed for and why, effectively administered and subject to independent audit. The MEC proposals move in the right direction, and I welcome that.
	I want to make one general point and then put down two markers. The general point is this: having been Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges for some seven years, it is my view that the vast majority of Members are honest folk who did not become Members to enrich themselves but to do a useful job in public life. They genuinely do their best to abide by our rules, which are often complex and less than clear. If they break the rules, the consequences can be terminal, as we have seen. I know that not everyone outside will accept that view, but I believe it to be the case, and it should be said.
	The first marker is that it is important, as we improve transparency and accountability, that the House's arrangements for the independent investigation of complaints should not be compromised. My Committee would be concerned if the proposed practice oversight arrangements and the greater depth of external audit were to compromise the House's arrangements for the investigation of complaints. I welcome the undertakings given earlier in this debate by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) to consult the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and my Committee on the mechanics of implementing the relevant recommendations.
	The second marker is this: as we look for greater accountability, we risk the regulatory pond becoming unduly crowded. Putting to one side the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which will have an ongoing interest in the issues that we debate, it seems likely that all the following bodies will have some direct interest in the practical operation of the revised arrangements: the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, my Committee, the Members Estimate Committee, the Speaker's advisory panel, the Department of Resources, the National Audit Office and the practice assurance teams and whatever new Committee they report to. The risk is clearly one of over-supervision, which, rather than improving clarity and assurance, would have the contrary effect as those bodies trip over one another.
	In conclusion, I welcome the Members Estimate Committee report, and the cautious welcome that it has received from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I assure the House that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and my Committee will play their full part within the framework laid down by the House to ensure that any new arrangements work effectively, and that they help to rebuild confidence in allowance arrangements that are fair to the House and the wider public interest.

David Winnick: The public's concern on this issue is not confined to—or indeed, in any way involved with—the filing system in our offices. It goes somewhat deeper than that. Virtually every reform on financial matters, apart from our salaries, has come about because of some scandal. The same is true of what we are debating today. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who spoke on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, mentioned, the scandal referred to in the report led to the recommendations before us today. Similar matters have arisen on previous occasions. In the late 80s and early 90s, there was the issue of payment for questions, and as a result of what  The Sunday Times did—I congratulated that paper at the time—a number of reforms came about, which should have been put in place earlier.
	I regret that this review has been entirely in house. The Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life said that a better way of doing things would have been through a committee of Members of Parliament and outsiders. I agree. I am not altogether certain that having a report from a body made up exclusively of MPs will restore public confidence in any way. One should not forget that it was only a year or so ago that attempts were made, supported, as I understand it, by the House of Commons Commission, to exempt Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act. What would the position have been if that had come about? Inevitably, there would have been a strong feeling that we were afraid of exposing our allowances. Everything would have been done on a voluntary basis, and it certainly would not have been done as a result of what has been decided by the Information Commissioner and the High Court. We would have been saying, in effect, that all other public bodies would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but that this House, which was responsible for introducing and passing that law, would be exempt. That would have been a disgraceful attempt at a cover-up, and I am pleased that it never became law.
	We have to face up to the fact, which has been mentioned several times today, that there is a lack of public confidence in some aspects of the allowances system. Yes, the media play a role to some extent because they love to go on about our allowances, expenses and salaries, and give the very wrong impression about this money that is given to us each month. Of course, it is nothing of the kind. Nevertheless, what has recently come out on what are described as second homes has understandably caused a great deal of concern. I am concerned that there has been a form of abuse, and that simply cannot be justified. The report does not deal with that. The public must be confident that the money that we claim for allowances and expenses is above board and legitimate. Except for the abuse that came to light and was duly exposed, there is no dispute about the secretarial allowance—the Fees Office pays it directly. However, the same does not apply to second homes. I happen to claim for rented accommodation. I claim the rent, the council tax and so on because the need for the accommodation arises from my parliamentary and constituency duties. I am happy for all the details to come out in October, but are we confident that everything about mortgage interest and so on is above board? Are we confident that what is claimed is what should be claimed, and that the public money that is claimed is justified? I have doubts about that, and the matter needs to be cleared up.
	We are often our own worst enemies. We do an important job—parliamentary democracy depends on the House and we should receive allowances and so on that are justified. When I first became a Member of Parliament, there was no secretarial allowance. That position has rightly been changed. Many other matters that needed to be rectified have been put right. However, I remain of the view that we should be careful that, while we preach to others and set guidelines about public expenditure, we cannot be accused of abusing the system. Although I welcome some aspects of the report—they are good and should help matters—I am not certain that it will restore public confidence in the way we would like.

Julian Lewis: A few days ago, after the Leader of the House gave us the good news that she would table a motion to enable the privacy and security of our home addresses to be maintained, an honourable Labour Member approached me and said in all seriousness, "Julian, what do you think about the prospect of establishing a trade union for Members of Parliament?" I think that he had me in mind for the role of shop steward—not quite the climactic outcome that I had in mind after six long years as a shadow Defence Minister. However, he had rather a good point because, as the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) revealed in a previous debate, no security information was apparently considered by the House authorities or put before the court before the crazy decision was made to release our home addresses en masse in easily accessible form for the benefit of any troublemaker or terrorist at home or abroad.
	I did the Information Commissioner an injustice on a previous occasion because I assumed that he had first suggested releasing our addresses. In fact, the matter first arose when the information appeal tribunal said that private addresses should be revealed, and the three eminent judges, in their wisdom, upheld the decision. On 25 June, 50 to 60 Members of Parliament attended a meeting with the Information Commissioner and, consequently, he has issued a statement. I shall briefly put some of it on the record.
	The Information Commissioner states that his office
	"has consistently taken a cautious approach towards the disclosure of home addresses, whether in the context of the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise. In most cases, an address is an individual's personal data and is protected by the Data Protection Act. None of the Freedom of Information decisions about MPs' expenses made by the Commissioner has required disclosure of home addresses."
	He goes on to say that
	"if any disclosure of personal address information arising from a Freedom of Information request is required at all, it should normally be limited to the first three digits of the postcode."
	He concludes that
	"it would be prudent for the House Authorities first to give each MP"—
	about whom a freedom of information request is made—
	"the opportunity to indicate whether they have a current or prospective security-related concern... The Commissioner considers that the House Authorities would then be entitled to withhold each address where such a concern is registered."
	As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out, once every four or five years we have to reveal our constituency address in the process of getting elected. But the fact that we have to do that with some of our addresses, some of the time, is no reason whatever for our having to do it with all our addresses, all the time, in an easily accessible form. Of course, if someone who is targeting a particular MP and means to track him or her down in order to do him or her harm puts in enough effort, it will be possible to do so. However, that does not cater for a situation in which someone with a grudge, someone with an obsession, a follower of a political cause or a self-taught follower of al-Qaeda, at home or abroad—who will not even have heard of most of the Members of this House—goes on the internet, conveniently finds 646 addresses and sends 646 packages containing something explosive, horrible or, at the very least, abusive to 646 unprotected mail boxes. The proposal is absolutely insane.

Patrick Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, because of the time.
	Finally, let me say something to those hon. Members who are worried about what the press say about our deliberations today. This is my first experience of a total media black-out. Journalists have again and again admitted to me privately that they have no answers to the points that I have made, but time and again they have refused to put anything in their papers. Even  The Daily Telegraph refused to publish a letter in reply. Could that conceivably be something to do with the fact that one of the people who took the case to court was a journalist on  The Sunday Telegraph who then proceeded to write an inane half-page article about how vital it was to reveal our home addresses, to ensure that we were not fiddling our expenses? He ought to be ashamed of himself, as should the media. I am grateful to the Leader of the House, who has done her duty so well in this event.

John Spellar: One of the problems with this debate is that most of us quite like the members of the Members Estimate Committee; we just think that they are wrong in one or two areas. They are wrong in believing that their measures will do away with some of the criticism, particularly in the media, but also from some of the public. In August 1944, Gallup asked the public what they thought about politicians. Some 36 per cent. thought that they were acting in the country's interest and 57 per cent. thought that they were acting in their own or their party's interest.
	Let me deal with the issue of the second residence. I say "residence", because it is important to get across the fact that the nature of our job means that, year in year out, most of us have to maintain two residences—one in our constituency and one in London. Helpfully, the report identifies the considerable costs of hotels, but even in spite of the cost, that is not a very suitable way to live, either for Members or their families. Members' families have to put up with a considerable amount of inconvenience anyway. To add to that is quite unjustifiable.
	We should also recognise that both society and this House have changed. As our panel said in its evidence to the MEC, this is the first time that all three party leaders have young families. That is unprecedented. Many more Members of Parliament have young families. As we saw at Easter, school holidays do not always coincide with our recesses. We see that every year in the summer, too. Often, families want to be able to be together, which they cannot in a bare-boards room.
	Another rather odd thing is the position that the MEC took on making the property habitable, rather than having just the four bare walls. The MEC makes a nod in that direction, saying:
	"We can see that new MPs setting up home in either a rented or purchased flat need a modest dispensation to use their allowance to equip it".
	That is in the report, but it is not in the recommendations and no figure is identified, which is unfortunate. The MEC sees no justification for continuing with that arrangement—in other words, for replacing that furniture or those fittings. I presume that if even a prisoner's television breaks down or their bed wears out, they get a replacement. That is an inadequacy of the report and the amendment seeks to address it.
	The MEC also implicitly assumes that there is one single pattern for Members' accommodation, namely that they have their main home in their constituency and an additional residence in London. I see one of the members of the MEC shaking his head, but that is exactly the way in which the report is written. In fact, that is true for about 80 per cent. of us. For a variety of reasons, about 20 per cent. of Members—often those who were Ministers before 1999—have to have their main residence in London, and they cannot keep on changing their residences back and forth.
	We therefore need flexibility, rather than a rigid system. That is the problem with some of the recommendations, which would create a bureaucratic, uniform system. The report talks about an expanded green book—an ever-expanding rule book—but in a short space of time, that could grow to achieve the proportions of the tax code. That might be familiar to some of those in the Department of Resources, but I do not think that it is a sensible way for us to go.
	If Members look at their own claims, they will find that the great majority relate to mortgage interest or rent, plus utilities and council tax, so we are going to spend large amounts of audit money dealing with a small part of our expenses. The same applies to office costs, because a large proportion of them is salaries. Will there be some cases in which there are problems? Yes, but they will be revealed not through an audit, not even with the £1,200-a-day PricewaterhouseCoopers people looking at the matter. They will be revealed by other discontented members of staff. That is true not only in our organisation but in all organisations.
	We therefore need proportionality. All companies and organisations need to examine how much they spend on creating a system to ensure that there is proper expenditure of their money. They must ensure that this is done in a proportionate way and that they are not spending £100 in order to save 2s/6d. I fear, however, that in response to media campaigns, the MEC has gone overboard in this regard. One thing that I know about consultants is that they always want to find a reason for being employed on the next contract. If a consultant goes into an organisation and spends three days rooting around, they will end up wanting to run the business. They will end up trying to tell us how to be Members of Parliament, just as a previous standards commissioner here tried to take on cases and act as an ombudsman on whether we were doing our job properly. The process is expensive, undesirable and unnecessary, which is why the amendment is right.

Ann Widdecombe: There is an immense naivety governing this debate. If we imagine that, by passing the well thought out motion tabled by the Members Estimate Committee, we shall somehow restore public confidence, or that by rejecting the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), we shall continue not to have the confidence of the public, we are living in cloud cuckoo land.
	One of two headlines will greet us at breakfast tomorrow. If the recommendations of the Members Estimate Committee go through, the headline will be "MPs to get £30 a day just for turning up". If the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, which I intend to support, is passed, the headline will be "MPs vote to keep the John Lewis list". Whichever way we vote, we will continue to be vilified and ridiculed until we have the guts—which we certainly did not show in the previous series of votes—to stand up for ourselves, to defend the system and to tell people why we have that system.
	We should tell people—because it is true—that if they pay someone less than a GP is paid, but demand, as they would not demand of a GP, that that person should then run—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady. I rarely interrupt her, but we must deal with the amendments to the motion on Members' expenses.
	 It being one and a half hours after  the  commencement of proceedings, Mr. Speaker  put the Question s necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motions relating to Members' expenses and Members' home addresses, pursuant to Order [ 1 July ] .
	 Amendment proposed: (d) in line 2, leave out from '578)' to end and add
	'recognises the need to strengthen the system of scrutiny and is of the opinion that a rigorous internal system of audit of the Additional Costs Allowance be introduced covering 25 per cent. of hon. Members each year, and every hon. Member each Parliament; and is of the opinion that—
	(1) Recommendations 5 (staff contracts), 8 (constituency offices), 9 and 10 (communications allowance), 11 and 12 (travel), 14 (overnight expenses), 15 (resettlement), and 16, 17 and 18 (other SSRB recommendations) be approved; and
	(2) that Recommendation 5 be implemented from 1st October 2008, that Recommendation 8 be implemented from 1st April 2010, that Recommendations 9 and 10 be implemented from 1st April 2009, that Recommendations 11 and 12 be implemented from 1st April 2009, that Recommendation 14 be implemented from 1st April 2009 and that Recommendation 15 be implemented at the end of the next Parliament.'.— [Mr. Touhig.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 144.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Amendment made: (f), in line 18, at end add—
	"4) any allowance for overnight costs arising from Parliamentary duties in London may not be used for accommodation expenses in respect of a residence designated by an hon. Member as his main residence for tax purposes.".— [John Mann.]
	 Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Members' Home Addresses

Resolved,
	That this House asserts that the freedom of Members to speak on any matter without the fear or threat of interference or molestation is essential to the effective conduct of parliamentary proceedings; notes that this freedom has long been recognised to be an integral element of the protection afforded to Members enabling them to participate 5 effectively in parliamentary business, and thus that Members must be able to speak on any matter in parliamentary proceedings without threat of interference or molestation; considers that this would be threatened by publication of Members' home addresses, patterns of travel or other information linked to addresses held by the House authorities revealing details that could threaten their security, and so would prejudice 10 the effective conduct of public affairs; and urges Mr Speaker to take account of these considerations in the discharge of his responsibilities.— [Ms Harman.]

business of the House

Ordered,
	That, in respect of the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—— —[Siobhain McDonagh.]

NHS 60TH ANNIVERSARY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Siobhain McDonagh.]

Tony Lloyd: As chair of the parliamentary Labour party, I am very proud to be introducing this debate today, because it was the Labour party that brought the national health service into existence, and that has subsequently built and fought for the NHS. I represent Manchester, Central in the city in which I was born, and 60 years ago Aneurin Bevan in effect opened the national health service at what was then called Park hospital a few miles from the centre of the city. Today, my city has one of the biggest hospital building programmes anywhere in the country, thanks to the current Labour Government.
	Sixty years on, it is difficult for many of us to understand and make sense of what life was like for the poor who were sick before the NHS came into being in 1948. In those years, friends of mine saw their children die because they could not afford the health care that is taken for granted today. People lived their lives embittered because they lost children in the time before there was an NHS, when people relied on private medicine. The ramifications were dreadful, and great distress was caused to millions of people because there was no NHS.
	The NHS has been one of the country's defining and civilising achievements, and people across the political spectrum now claim to be proud of it. It is an achievement built on the dedication of millions of people. I want to pay tribute to the nurses, doctors and other medical staff for the contribution they have made over those 60 years; they are there in people's hour of need. I also want to pay tribute, however, to people such as those in the ambulance service and the porters, the builders and even the bureaucrats, whom it is so easy to deride, but without whom the health service would not work.
	I do not want to be too partisan in these days when even the Tory party says it loves the NHS. However, it might be worth pointing out that I understand that some hours ago the Tory party demanded access to some of the "NHS at 60" badges, which I am proud to be wearing. In earlier debates, I saw very few Conservative Members wearing those badges.  [Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends are telling and showing me that they are wearing their badges, but not so the Tories. It is a shame, though, that the Tories did not display the same dedication to the NHS in 1946 when the Bill to create it was being taken through the House. My namesake—but no relation, I think—Major Lloyd said that taking over the hospitals was like Henry VIII taking over the monasteries, but most of our constituents are delighted that our hospitals are now part of the NHS and safe in Labour's hands.
	I wish the Tories had been so careful with the NHS.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) laughs. Perhaps that is because he was part of a Government who ran down the NHS. When the Tories were in power there was real talk about dismantling the NHS and about different ways of providing a national health service, such as insurance funding. There was talk about the break-up of the NHS.

Alistair Burt: rose—

Tony Lloyd: Because I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman, if he is very brief I will give way.

Alistair Burt: I offered a laugh of amusement because I fought a number of elections in which Labour produced leaflets talking about the privatisation of the health service. The hon. Gentleman talks about 60 years on and the health service being safe under Labour, but how does he feel about this Government doing so much to bring the private sector into the health service, which I am sure he would have vigorously opposed no more than five years ago?

Tony Lloyd: I will respond to that in a few moments, but let us first talk a little about the Conservative record. When Clement Attlee suggested that the opening of the NHS should be celebrated as a national institution and supported by the whole nation, Nye Bevan, the founder of the national health service, said:
	"The Conservatives voted against the National Health Act, not only on the second but on the Third Reading. I do not see why we should forget this."
	The Conservative Government of the 1980s tried systematically to underfund and dismantle our NHS. Even then they could not break it completely, but they left it in a parlous state, which Conservative Members—including those few who are present—should be ashamed of.
	It is also difficult to forget that the coalition against the building of the NHS and one of the greatest reforming Acts that this House has ever brought into being is just as real and alive today: the British Medical Association and the Conservative party, which joined forces then to scare and mislead, and which join forces today to scare and mislead on proposals to bring better services for patients throughout the country.
	In this morning's edition of  The Times, the Leader of the Opposition is quoted as saying that
	"Google can tell us more about our illness than our doctors".
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give me an absolute guarantee that, although the citizens of Witney may want Google for their medical care, Manchester, Central will have real doctors, real nurses and real spending in our NHS, and not gimmicks. I do wonder whether the Opposition are serious, even today, about the NHS. We know that, in the end, the NHS is safest in the hands of the Labour party. Labour is proud of the NHS and has shown unflinching support for the values that the NHS is there to provide. Ours is the party that voted for it, built it, saved it, invested in it and rebuilt it when it was brought to such a low state under the last Tory Government, and we are now determined to deliver the quality of service that will help it flourish into the next century.
	We have done an enormous number of things already since 1997 of which we are very proud. Let us look at the real facts about real people. Today, there are 50,000 people alive in this country who would have died from cancer; they have been saved by the improvements of this Labour Government. Some 150,000 people who would have died of heart disease have survived. There are 80,000 extra nurses in our health service and 38,000 extra doctors. These mind-boggling numbers show the scale of the investment that we have put into the health service. For example, in 1997 just two thirds of people with suspected cancer were seen within two weeks of being referred; that number has now risen to 99.6 per cent. The difference in terms of people's lives is that they have peace of mind; and of course, early detection of cancer means increased survival rates. Many people survive precisely because of the investment that we have put in. Some 35,000 heart operations were carried out in 1997; in 2007, approximately 74,000 were carried out—almost twice as many. Again, that is a lot of lives saved.
	The House knows that over the years, the NHS has been able to compare itself happily and proudly with other systems around the world. I think it fair to say that the NHS model really does work—we can compare our system with health systems around the world, and in particular the American model. Let us be honest: the American model certainly does produce enormous excellence, but it is enormous excellence for the very few, and enormous poverty of health care for the many who cannot afford health insurance, or whose health insurance falls through the system. Such a role for private insurance can never offer the people of this country what we demand from our health care. We know from other systems in different parts of Europe that there are standards that we would like in different areas, but there is no other system as universal and comprehensive as ours.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has shown her commitment to the NHS over a lifetime. Not so long ago, she was a working nurse in our national health service. She has given of her own life to the NHS and is proud to have done so. The very pride that she has in our national health service is the pride that every Labour Member of Parliament has. We know that in the end, the NHS still is the jewel in Labour's crown. It is the jewel in the nation's crown, because it is the one institution that, without peradventure, the public of this country love and cherish. It is the one institution that the public would not let go of, even when it was under attack in previous days from underfunding and there was a Government who would have dismantled it, had they felt that they could have got away with it politically. That is why I am here to say on behalf of every Labour Member of Parliament that we are still proud of our NHS, proud of our Health Ministers and proud in particular of what we will build for the future. We are proud of the contribution that the Labour party has made to this enduring jewel in British society.

Ann Keen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) on securing this debate, which is so timely in the week when our national health service celebrates its diamond birthday. I am delighted to have the opportunity to celebrate it, a couple of days before the 60th anniversary of that famous day, 5 July 1948.
	Yesterday, many Members and, more importantly, members of staff of the NHS past and present, and many of its patients, attended a most magnificent service at Westminster abbey. I am sure that the whole House would want me to thank the staff of the abbey for allowing us to hold the 60th anniversary service there. Many people were moved by the tributes that were paid in short contributions by Ashley Brooks, Ed Mayne, Louise Baxter and Elizabeth Farrelly. Elizabeth told us that when she was 21, she was appointed by Aneurin Bevan to be the first woman ever to sit on a hospital board, that of the Royal London hospital. She was with us yesterday and showed, in the contribution that she made before those from the Prime Minister and David Nicholson, the chief executive of the NHS, that she is very much a diamond to us.
	My hon. Friend was kind to mention that I have spent some time in the NHS—more than 30 years, actually—so the anniversary has a special meaning for me. I started in administration as a clerk and then continued into nursing. In community nursing in particular, I saw the gross inequalities that existed in health, and I witnessed the waiting times throughout the '80s and '90s when I was a clinical nurse practitioner. I knew that the patients whom I visited would have a long wait for their pain to be relieved, particularly if it was hip pain that required a replacement operation, or cataracts, which restricted their ability to care for themselves.
	I loved working in the NHS and am proud to say that I did so—just as proud as I am of its recent achievements. They include making significant inroads into driving down health care-associated infections and cutting waiting times from referral to treatment to a maximum of 18 weeks. The whole staff of the NHS need to be congratulated on that; not just the surgeons but the clerical assistants who administer the difficult record-keeping to ensure that patients are called at an appropriate time. Of course, we expect patients to meet those times and booking arrangements whenever possible.
	It is not only myself and Members of all parties who are proud of the health service. According to a BBC poll published on Monday, we are not alone. Some 82 per cent. of respondents said that they, too, were proud of it, and half thought that it was the envy of the world.
	It is hard to imagine what life was like before the NHS. The lowest-paid working men contributed a compulsory 4d a week to a system that provided them with the service of a panel doctor but not hospital care. Higher-paid workers and all women and children had to pay each time they saw a GP, usually laying the money on the desk as they walked in the door. Many older people, including my parents, tell me of the fear of a two-bob cough turning into a three-bob cough, and what a difference that shilling would make to the family budget if the cough worsened.

Paul Flynn: I vividly remember the days before the war, when the cost of having a call from a doctor was 2s/6d. The total family income was a widow's pension of 8s/6d, which makes us understand the terrible choices that parents had to make. They had to pay three quarters of their weekly income to get the doctor to call for their two children. That was at a time when childhood diseases were killing children on a large scale. The NHS has lifted the burden of anxiety from a generation and allowed ordinary people greater peace of mind for 60 years.

Ann Keen: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That was the situation before the vision of the 1945 Attlee Government—

Ann Cryer: I cannot resist mentioning a story about my first late husband, Bob Cryer, who was also a Member of Parliament for Keighley. When he was six in 1941, he almost died of diphtheria. The doctor's bills were so big that his mother, who was a skilled dressmaker, had to make dresses and suits for the doctor's wife to pay off the bills. That was the only way the family could pay them.

Ann Keen: My hon. Friend makes a worthy point and it is especially fitting that she should mention Bob in this debate.

Alistair Burt: My father was a GP in Bury and served the national health service for nearly 50 years. He told me that when he first arrived in Bury the practice was still collecting debts from people who had had to pay before the NHS was introduced. That that shameful practice does not go on today is a huge credit to the NHS and all who work in it.

Ann Keen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his worthy remarks about his father's contribution to the health service. As a community nurse, I used to visit older people and they would still be concerned to offer me something in return for my visit. I was often offered some eggs and had to say that it was not necessary, but that generation still could not quite believe that they had the NHS, provided according to need and not ability to pay.
	When it was created, the NHS was unique. It was the first time anywhere in the world that health care was provided completely free at the point of delivery, on the basis of citizenship rather than the payment of fees or insurance. It was also the first time that prevention, diagnosis and treatment were brought together under one umbrella organisation. The NHS is as unique today as it was 60 years ago. It has one of the world's largest work forces, and provides one of the world's most comprehensive national health services.
	This week, "Our NHS, Our Future" set the future direction of the NHS for the next 10 years and beyond, with great emphasis on quality. It will see patients becoming more active, empowered and involved in their own care; more care closer to home in the community; a more personalised treatment system, rather than medicine for the masses; and prevention care climbing higher up the agenda. It will help to ensure that the NHS remains at the forefront of care, research and treatment, and continues to be the envy of the world.

Jim Sheridan: If my hon. Friend has 30 years' service in the NHS, as she said earlier, she must have joined it straight from school.
	Despite the cynical voices of the Opposition about private investment in the NHS, the fundamental principle remains the same: it is free at the point of need.

Ann Keen: My hon. Friend's compliment is accepted. The principle to which he refers has always been, and always will be, the case for Labour Members.
	Medicine and health care have to change, because they are dynamic. If we never changed, we would not be delivering health care as it should be delivered. People's needs change and so does the science, so delivery should also change. In 1948, cataract operations meant a week of total immobility with the patient's head supported by sandbags. Eye surgery is now over within 20 minutes, and most patients go home the same day. In 1958, hip replacements were still so unusual that the surgeon who invented them asked patients to agree to return them post mortem. The NHS now carries out more than 1,000 of those replacements every week. I remember my first time as a student nurse in theatre assisting with what was called the Charnley operation and seeing a hip removed. Seeing that patient free of pain was nothing short of a miracle.
	Last year, staff at Harefield hospital grew a human heart valve from stem cells and this year, staff at Moorfields have already tested a revolutionary gene therapy for treatment of a type of inherited blindness, and patient choice has been extended on that to all NHS-approved hospital providers.
	People are now living on average at least 10 years longer than in the past. Deaths from cancer and heart disease have fallen dramatically and Britain is one of the safest places in the world to give birth. As a former nurse, I know that dramatic improvements in the health service have not been easy to achieve, but I remember when money-collection buckets for equipment and for accident and emergency equipment were the norm. The friends of the hospital did not just provide some of the friendlier aspects of health care, such as art, music and the like; money was collected for big equipment, like scanners, and they were owned by the friends of the hospital and other charities, which performed much of the fundraising. That is no longer the case. We have first-class equipment in first-class buildings and we must always consider how we have to change and use the skills of the work force, in particular.
	I want to pay tribute to the work force. Working for the health service is a huge commitment, and it is usually a huge commitment for the member of staff's family, too. The staff and volunteers, past and present, continually help to drive up standards and the quality of care for millions. I hope that the media recognises that this week. Yes, we sometimes get it wrong. The system can be inefficient and over-bureaucratic, but most of the time it is marvellous. The diamond is about the only stone that hardly has a flaw in it, but occasionally that will happen. The majority of the time, however, we have to stand up and be proud of the NHS.
	We must be proud of the NHS's values—universal, tax-funded and free at the point of need. They remain as fundamental to the NHS today as they were when it was launched back in 1948. Yesterday, we celebrated at Westminster Abbey. We went across the road to the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, where the amazing, wonderful world-class soprano, Lesley Garrett, sang "The impossible dream" to all those who attended the service. I do not intend to burst into song at this point—I know that I am disappointing Members by not doing so. She said, as Nye Bevan would have wanted, that to dream the impossible dream was what he and that Labour Government did. They fought the unbeatable foe and they won.
	Aneurin Bevan said that a national health service would
	"lift the shadow from millions of homes. It will keep very many people alive who might otherwise be dead. It will relieve suffering...It will be a great contribution towards the wellbeing of the common people of Great Britain."—[ Official Report, 30 April 1946; Vol. 422, c. 63.]
	He also said:
	"No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means".
	I hope that we all continue in that spirit. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central surrounds Trafford, where the first NHS hospital was established. The north-west region is right to be proud of what it does today. We dreamed the impossible dream. We fought the foe at different stages of that journey. We still have a few fights to go, but we will be as brave as the song says and as Aneurin Bevan wanted us to be. I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Six o'clock.